Jedi Archive
Thread: I, Bounty Hunter
Ziege19 wrote:
bounty hunters are bottom feeders.
HUNTING is neither "bottom feeding", nor scavaging. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
In fact, to call bounty hunters bottom feeders or scavangers is really akin to calling jedi, their prey, carrion or scum.
Kinda funny that you guys would make that point, then, aint it
In fact, to call bounty hunters bottom feeders or scavangers is really akin to calling jedi, their prey, carrion or scum.
Kinda funny that you guys would make that point, then, aint it
Kamujin wrote:
Ziege19 wrote:
bounty hunters are bottom feeders.
HUNTING is neither "bottom feeding", nor scavaging. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
In fact, to call bounty hunters bottom feeders or scavangers is really akin to calling jedi, their prey, carrion or scum.
Kinda funny that you guys would make that point, then, aint it
If BH's were "attackable" while "hunting", I would agree with your arguement.
The simple reality is that BH's are only willing to fight under the following conditions.
1) They get to chose an opponent they think they can beat.
2) They get to chose the time of the fight.
3) They have nothing to lose.
4) They have alot to gain.
5) They get the option of numerical advantage.
I have no problem with the fact that these are the current rules.
However, when you need to have so many factors slanted in your favor to fight, you can't really brag about being some uber hunter, because you are in fact playing in "easy mode".
Don't think so? Try the other side. I've done both. I don't have to take anyones word for it. BH was hard before the seekers worked. Now it gets easier every patch.
I am not against BH's as a profession. I am just not gonna let you pretend you are uber hunters.
That depends entirely upon whether the mark is finished template, or paddy. Atleast, for us ranged Bounty Hunters it does. Against a competent jedi knight, it is near impossible to kill them unless you have a legendary weapon, you catch them unbuffed (which shouldn't happen to a competent knight), or... gank =/
siros_vazren wrote:
Bounty hunters are scavangers? Interesting comment. Lets see...
Scavangers: Beings living off of materials other beings do not want and/or have no use for.
Sounds right to me. Just kidding, we all know how much jedis contribute to the community and economy of the game...oh wait...nevermind.
I don't have anything against Jedi or Bounty Hunters. I have something against people who just won't shut up about how someone else is ruining their game one second then the next using a spawn bug or other exploit to enhance their game. Practice what you preach and lead by example. Show that you can play without exploits and bugs first, then complain about the next guy.
Opinions are like snowflakes, no two are exactly alike. And like snowflakes, most folks do not want to waste time looking at one cause there are a million more falling from the sky behind it.
Siros Vazren
Wanderhome
Omega
Omega Lake
(P.S. Not a bounty Hunter or a Jedi)
RIF bro.
I never said they are ruining the game. NEVER.
I simply reject their notion that they are some "uber" hunters.
As evidence to my arguement, I suggest the follow facts.
IMO, this is like demanding to have 5 extra queens in a chess game, then declaring yourself a chessmaster.
Message Edited by Kamujin on 04-16-2005 01:10 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
well neeo,
before i answer that let's recap...
first you misspelled "responses" while you were calling other people dumb, when you said....
"I love some of the dumb responces in here from the usuals. Lovely."
then cihys pointed out that it was ironic that you would misspell a common word while calling other people dumb when he said...
"Look, you probably think you're 'cute' or 'leet' or whatever... But honestly. If you want to call someone 'dumb' over the internet. at least check your spelling ok?"
then you showed that you clearly didn't comprehend what was going on when you responded with...
"I said dumb responces not dumb people, check your reading. "
...misspelling the word "responses" a second time. then kamujin helped you out by explaining...
"I think he's refering to the fact that you refuse to spell "responses" correctly."
to which you replied...
"I dont care how I or you spell. It just shows some people pick on other things when they have no arguement left. ie: spelling."
so not only did you accuse someone of not having an argument when your originalcontribution was that "some responses were dumb"... but you go on to misspell the word argument.
so am i trying to start something? no. it's more like i'm sitting back laughing at how dumb you are.
on a side note, it boggles my mind that you registered little over a year ago and have posted over 4300 times.
masselin wrote:
trying to start something?
Neeo -13-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
well neeo,
before i answer that let's recap...
first you misspelled "responses" while you were calling other people dumb, when you said....
"I love some of the dumb responces in here from the usuals. Lovely."
then cihys pointed out that it was ironic that you would misspell a common word while calling other people dumb when he said...
"Look, you probably think you're 'cute' or 'leet' or whatever... But honestly. If you want to call someone 'dumb' over the internet. at least check your spelling ok?"
then you showed that you clearly didn't comprehend what was going on when you responded with...
"I said dumb responces not dumb people, check your reading. "
...misspelling the word "responses" a second time. then kamujin helped you out by explaining...
"I think he's refering to the fact that you refuse to spell "responses" correctly."
to which you replied...
"I dont care how I or you spell. It just shows some people pick on other things when they have no arguement left. ie: spelling."
so not only did you accuse someone of not having an argument when your originalcontribution was that "some responses were dumb"... but you go on to misspell the word argument.
so am i trying to start something? no. it's more like i'm sitting back laughing at how dumb you are.
on a side note, it boggles my mind that you registered little over a year ago and have posted over 4300 times.
Kamujin wrote:
Ziege19 wrote:bounty hunters are bottom feeders.
HUNTING is neither "bottom feeding", nor scavaging. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
In fact, to call bounty hunters bottom feeders or scavangers is really akin to calling jedi, their prey, carrion or scum.
Kinda funny that you guys would make that point, then, aint itIf BH's were "attackable" while "hunting", I would agree with your arguement.The simple reality is that BH's are only willing to fight under the following conditions.1) They get to chose an opponent they think they can beat.2) They get to chose the time of the fight.3) They have nothing to lose.4) They have alot to gain.5) They get the option of numerical advantage.I have no problem with the fact that these are the current rules.However, when you need to have so many factors slanted in your favor to fight, you can't really brag about being some uber hunter, because you are in fact playing in "easy mode".Don't think so? Try the other side. I've done both. I don't have to take anyones word for it. BH was hard before the seekers worked. Now it gets easier every patch.I am not against BH's as a profession. I am just not gonna let you pretend you are uber hunters.
Did I say anything about "uber?" I said they were hunters, not scavangers, that's all.
All this crying about BH's playing the game the way it's designed to be played being "griefing" is ridiculous on its face.
masselin wrote:HUNTING is neither "bottom feeding", nor scavaging. In fact, it's quite the opposite.In fact, to call bounty hunters bottom feeders or scavangers is really akin to calling jedi, their prey, carrion or scum.Kinda funny that you guys would make that point, then, aint it~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~yes that is funny...but you are simply using selective interpretation, choosing one literal definition of "bottom feeder" to draw a humorous but flawed conclusion from an analogy.the applicable definition of "bottom feeder" at dictionary.com is "An opportunist who profits from the misfortunes of others."there is no question that bounty hunters are opportunists (bh terminal) who profit (credits) from the misfortune of others (jedi xp loss).i offer this link http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bottom%20feeder as evidence to prove objectively that bounty hunters are in fact bottom feeders by definition. thank you for leading me to discover that it was not just my opinion.
Right. So all hunters are "bottom feeders". Gotcha.
Go tell it on Ranger board
