|
|
#28502, "For Nep and Nep only."
|
Explorer Rangers vs Other Specialty rangers IN THEIR HOME TERRAIN.
You posted back when the Ranger Revamp first came out that Explorers would never suffer as much from bad wilderness time but they would never have optimal benefit either.
Does this mean that for Wilderness Familiarity and Wilderness Familiarty ONLY they don't benifit as much?
In other words, all things being equal would they benifit less in home terrain from wilderness familiarity than other specialties in home terrain?
|
|
|
|
RE: For Nep and Nep only.,
Splntrd,
20-Nov-09 01:56 AM, #5
Do you know what it means to be passive aggressive?,
Pro (Guest),
20-Nov-09 12:22 PM, #7
RE: Do you know what it means to be passive aggressive?,
Susu (Guest),
20-Nov-09 02:44 PM, #8
It's actually a text book example.,
Pro (Guest),
20-Nov-09 09:19 PM, #11
RE: It's actually a text book example.,
Susu (Guest),
20-Nov-09 10:40 PM, #12
Believe it or not.,
Pro (Guest),
21-Nov-09 10:31 AM, #15
Whoops! I was wrong.,
Pro (Guest),
21-Nov-09 10:39 AM, #16
Yeah, sort of blew the whole 'I am a genius' mentality ...,
Lhydia,
21-Nov-09 11:45 AM, #17
RE: It's actually a text book example.,
Splntrd,
21-Nov-09 01:54 AM, #13
I dont think I know, I know.,
Pro (Guest),
21-Nov-09 10:12 AM, #14
Graatch is right. That's a piss-poor definition.~,
blackbird,
20-Nov-09 04:35 PM, #9
That's a lie. n/t,
Lhydia,
20-Nov-09 09:17 PM, #10
RE: For Nep and Nep only.,
Daevryn,
19-Nov-09 10:34 PM, #3
Thank you. n/t,
Pro (Guest),
20-Nov-09 12:19 PM, #6
Well, Lhydia already answered one anyways, so...,
Straklaw,
19-Nov-09 08:08 PM, #2
RE: Well, Lhydia already answered one anyways, so...,
Daevryn,
19-Nov-09 10:34 PM, #4
Yes. n/t,
Lhydia,
19-Nov-09 07:59 PM, #1
| |
|
Splntrd | Fri 20-Nov-09 01:56 AM |
Member since 08th Feb 2004
1096 posts
| |
|
#28510, "RE: For Nep and Nep only."
In response to Reply #0
|
Passive aggressive, much? Splntrd
|
|
|
|
  |
|
#28528, "Do you know what it means to be passive aggressive?"
In response to Reply #5
|
It's akin to a child not picking up his clothes because along the way he had to stop to get water, then realized he was hungry, then daddy needed him to do something.
|
|
|
|
    |
|
#28534, "RE: Do you know what it means to be passive aggressive?"
In response to Reply #7
|
That's actually not at all what the term means. But I don't really think it matters.
|
|
|
|
      |
|
#28541, "It's actually a text book example."
In response to Reply #8
|
But you did manage to get Blackturd to join your fan club.
|
|
|
|
        |
|
#28542, "RE: It's actually a text book example."
In response to Reply #11
|
Perhaps, if you're using a football playbook as your textbook.
I tried to help you. If you want to continue to believe you're right and I'm wrong, so be it. I'm telling you, you're wrong. But what do I know? You're the one with the job that is 99% writing, for people whose entire careers are based on the written word. I'm the bounty hunter.
Oh, right.
But I don't care enough about you to help you anymore. Feel free to use this example with others, particularly people you want to impress. I'm sure it will work wonders.
|
|
|
|
          |
|
#28549, "Believe it or not."
In response to Reply #12
|
I have always felt you were justified in your legendary rant and while amussing you have been unfairly colored by it over the years.
I also tend to see your point over that of others especially the Imms.
To me it's clear the majority of the players lack the mental dexterity to stand on most argument they make with you so they flame you.
That being said when a person is passive aggressive they tend to be sulky and display reluctance, delaying actions and procrastination. Which was what I describe in my example so a football player could understood.
|
|
|
|
            |
|
#28550, "Whoops! I was wrong."
In response to Reply #15
|
I just reread my description of PA behavior.
In my example I didn't specify that the child was told to pick up his clothes and so he was looking for excuses as to why he couldn't.
My bad.
|
|
|
|
              |
Lhydia | Sat 21-Nov-09 11:45 AM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
2391 posts
| |
|
#28551, "Yeah, sort of blew the whole 'I am a genius' mentality ..."
In response to Reply #16
|
|
|
        |
Splntrd | Sat 21-Nov-09 01:54 AM |
Member since 08th Feb 2004
1096 posts
| |
|
#28545, "RE: It's actually a text book example."
In response to Reply #11
|
|
|
          |
|
#28547, "I dont think I know, I know."
In response to Reply #13
|
It's covered in Psych 101 as well as any dictionary or online reference. It's not my oppinion it's fact. So when you used it out of context to characterize me I corrected you.
I generally don't post mean spirited texts. I respond to innacurate posts pertaining to mine, though I admit I was shocked when Graatch, being an attorney, would be so clearly wrong on something he could have looked up in a dictionary. So yeah I replied to him. As far as Blackturd, I can't remember a possitive or constructive post from him ever so yeah I backhanded him. You. Make a fair point. My bad.
And another correction, I didn't first mention the Socratic Method, I think Balrahd did and in such away that I didn't think he understood what it was.
As far as posting specifically for Nep and Nep only... I was asking him to specifically clarify a post he made a couple years ago. I as a person don't like extraineous input on specific questions and I didn't want a bunch of "I think" posts from other players.
|
|
|
|
    |
Lhydia | Fri 20-Nov-09 09:17 PM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
2391 posts
| |
|
#28540, "That's a lie. n/t"
In response to Reply #7
|
|
|
|
Daevryn | Thu 19-Nov-09 10:34 PM |
Member since 13th Feb 2007
11117 posts
| |
|
#28507, "RE: For Nep and Nep only."
In response to Reply #0
|
>In other words, all things being equal would they benifit less >in home terrain from wilderness familiarity than other >specialties in home terrain?
No, assuming that one of the things being equal is their wilderness time.
|
|
|
|
  |
|
#28527, "Thank you. n/t"
In response to Reply #3
|
|
|
|
Straklaw | Thu 19-Nov-09 08:08 PM |
Member since 10th Mar 2003
1014 posts
| |
|
#28504, "Well, Lhydia already answered one anyways, so..."
In response to Reply #0
|
I'm about 98% sure that came up after conversations regarding fastcamo and such. My understanding was that it referred to wanderlust, and more specifically referencing this part:
"Even an explorer who spends a significant amount of time in civilization will find that his skills do not suffer nearly as much as other rangers."
Making up random numbers, let's say your wilderness percentage can go from 1-100. Say fastcamo is like...an 85. Wanderlust makes it so that your wilderness percentage gets to pick between the higher of what it really is, and wanderlust giving you an automatic 70. Therefore, if you're wandering around, wanderlust makes it so you're not crippled. However, if you're a wilderness ranger, you get your actual wilderness numbers...at which point, you're not really getting any use of wanderlust either.
So, my short version of what I understand: Wanderlust puts a "bottom end" on how bad you can be. Obviously, that bottom end is not going to be anywhere near top level of rangering, and so you're never going to be as bad, but if you're actually having to use that, you're not going to be as good as other rangers either. However, I'll still say we can let an Imm verify if my understanding is correct.
|
|
|
|
  |
Daevryn | Thu 19-Nov-09 10:34 PM |
Member since 13th Feb 2007
11117 posts
| |
|
#28508, "RE: Well, Lhydia already answered one anyways, so..."
In response to Reply #2
|
This is essentially correct -- wanderlust sets a lower bound on what you can count as, but doesn't muck with your upper bound.
|
|
|
|
|
Lhydia | Thu 19-Nov-09 07:59 PM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
2391 posts
| |
|
#28503, "Yes. n/t"
In response to Reply #0
|
|
|
|