Upcomming Surge Changes! - Page 9

Krinsath · 2004-03-13, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by BDMJ

Krinsath that balance discussion was the biggest load of horsecrap I have seen in a long time. The weapons are balanced for the most part and your bitching is even more obnoxious than that which you complain about because it is so damn constant. Regarding the quad shot "exploit" fix, keep in mind that the devs can call anything an exploit at any time and change it. If it was such a huge exploit, why did it take the devs 8 months to fix it, did it just slip their minds?

Why does it take Devs forever to fix things? Because they need to be sure it isn't just pointless complaints and that there is an issue. Surge warping was an issue they tried to fix. It didn't, they probably exhausted every avenue available to fix the problem before arriving here.

Weapons for the most part are balanced in terms of damage at their ideal range. In terms of other factors, there are some severe imbalances.

The TR MAX to use it's weapons at full effectiveness has to be stock still and can only take 2 hits from a decimator before dying. A coordinated team can kill a locked down MAX at the backdoor before the MAX has a chance to respond. THAT is an imbalance, even though the weaponry is in tune.

The Pulsar, while decent at close range, is a very weak rifle at a distance, which is where rifles are supposed to excel. The trade-off is that you can do equally little damage to armor and to infantry. I'm not asking for a whole-sale upping of the Pulsar's damage, as up close it is fine. I'm saying the degradation at range needs to be reduced so that there's a chance of doing damage at more than 40m.

The vehicles, like-wise, are balanced on a straight weapon comparison. The Prowler however is a much larger target with weaker armor. Factor in that the TR must sacrifice an extra trooper to ward off aircraft (which no other empire has to do) and it becomes slightly imbalanced. If you're going to design vehicles to be balanced 1v1 and you're aiming for an ideal 33% population split amongst the empires, why on earth would you give one empire a vehicle that requires more crew?

Again, examine more than just the amount of damage a weapon system can do. There are more factors than one at work, and as illustrated in the case of the TR MAXes, they can far outweigh the benefits of using it.

The JH, on a damage basis, is the most powerful HA. This ignores the range imbalance between it and the other HAs. In this case, the imbalances are closer to offsetting each other. In those other cases, they do not. That's what needs to be fixed, a weapon is not defined by the amount of damage it does, but also the means by which you have to employ it.

Originally Posted by Eldanesh

On tanks: Mags/ Prowlers are hardly gimped, Prowlers simply need to be used more by TR. (I shake my head whenever I have to watch Tr insistant on zerging tower-to-base on foot rather than rolling armor) Magriders in their element, on water are neigh unstoppable and on ground by sniping/ hit + run they are awesome tankhunters. I don't know what you are talking about when you say they own at AI it sucks at it, they really need to get rid of the "speedbump" effect you get from mowing, it totally killed magrider AI.

They're not gimped, but they're a far cry from being able to compete with the Vanguard. I think the Vanguard is an example of how the tanks SHOULD be. The Mag is quite close in that it trades armor for manueverabilty and also has the able to reliably down aircraft (nothing more fun than swatting mosquitos with it's main gun). What did the TR trade their armor for? A taller tank with a slower speed that requires more crew? That is the problem. Those little non-damage factors when compared to weapons of their class. I love gunning a Vanguard, especially when I see a Prowler, because I know that a good Vaguard crew will beat a Prowler 9 times out of 10...and a crewed Prowler kill is about as good as a base cap. When 2 Vanguards can stop 4 Prowlers, there's something wrong on the face of that...especially when the NC needed 4 soldiers to field those tanks and the TR probably had between 10 and 12.

And for AI, I was referring to the Mag's guns...you know, the thing you're supposed to use to kill people.

AV MAXes are sad, they need help since they're big targets and can't hit back.

Krinsath · 2004-03-13, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Eldanesh

1v1 it should be even, in the heat of battle where there are many random factors, the extra armor does make a difference, but in the end it should be one persons skill that determines how they fare, not their gear.

Skill should be around 40% of the equation. Equipment should be 40% and random dumb luck the remainder (battle IS chaos, after all).

That means that skill can offset lesser equipment, but if all things are equal, the one with the better equipment for the situation is going to win.

If you have a horrible Mosquito pilot and you're an excellent Gauss user, you can kill the mosquito even though you're not really carrying the right equipment. However, if you're facing someone of roughly equal skill, and they have better equipment for the situation, then you're going to lose more often than not. Yes, this may mean the end of some people's fantasies that they are really the best videogame player ever, or it may simply confirm it. Time will tell. Equipment and skill cancel each other out, but giving up anything to the enemy on either is going to result in being killed.

BDMJ · 2004-03-13, 11:34 PM

Why does it take Devs forever to fix things? Because they need to be sure it isn't just pointless complaints and that there is an issue. Surge warping was an issue they tried to fix. It didn't, they probably exhausted every avenue available to fix the problem before arriving here.

If they need so much time to determine if something is an issue why did it take them 2 weeks to fix lasher 2.0, and EIGHT MONTHS to fix the quad shot? I think they were able to fix the lasher pretty damn fast, so what the fuck was the holdup with the JH, which was a very widely used "exploit"? They can't have failed to notice it, and the fix they made was nothing more than a database change.

The TR MAX to use it's weapons at full effectiveness has to be stock still and can only take 2 hits from a decimator before dying. A coordinated team can kill a locked down MAX at the backdoor before the MAX has a chance to respond. THAT is an imbalance, even though the weaponry is in tune.

Better example please, inside a base any max might as well be standing still due to the size of the hitbox. Outside survivability doesn't matter as any max signs its death warrant by leaving a base.

The vehicles, like-wise, are balanced on a straight weapon comparison. The Prowler however is a much larger target with weaker armor. Factor in that the TR must sacrifice an extra trooper to ward off aircraft (which no other empire has to do) and it becomes slightly imbalanced. If you're going to design vehicles to be balanced 1v1 and you're aiming for an ideal 33% population split amongst the empires, why on earth would you give one empire a vehicle that requires more crew?

The main guns for all tanks are balanced, and no tank is considered an AA platform. Please remind me what you were bitching about again. Get a more realistic conception of tanks and their role in this game, then post again. In the role of infantry and vehicle combat, the prowler is equal to the vanguard or the mag. The third gunner gives it the potential to have even greater firepower.

Now that I feel I have refuted your points regarding balance sufficiently, I think we can get back to the issue at hand.

I would prefer the devs to give us a real fix rather than pander to the whiners. As I stated earlier, this quick fix mentality is killing the game. After all, what has been hurting the performance of the game the most has been the performance "quick" fixes introduced by the devs. After their optimizations sent the average user's game performance to hell, the devs cut out frames in an attempt to "fix" the problem, giving the high end users the shaft. Why not just roll back the changes? That might require re-doing a patch, so why not just slap a bandaid on it and call it fixed.

Krinsath · 2004-03-13, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by BDMJ

If they need so much time to determine if something is an issue why did it take them 2 weeks to fix lasher 2.0, and EIGHT MONTHS to fix the quad shot? I think they were able to fix the lasher pretty damn fast, so what the fuck was the holdup with the JH, which was a very widely used "exploit"? They can't have failed to notice it, and the fix they made was nothing more than a database change.

Chances are because they attritbuted the problem to other issues, and wasn't readily observed. Computer techs can spend hours trying to troubleshoot a machine that won't connect to the Internet when it doesn't have an IP address...an obvious problem to someone who knows and deals with networks everyday, but not to someone who may not use the Internet often.

Same deal, they may not have sat down and thought about the process that was going on with the NC being able to fire a chamber that had already been discharged and how that made no sense to fire an empty barrel.

Originally Posted by BDMJ

Better example please, inside a base any max might as well be standing still due to the size of the hitbox. Outside survivability doesn't matter as any max signs its death warrant by leaving a base.

VS MAXes are still effective indoors as their jump jets give them a bit of dodge capability, NC MAXes can compete for a bit if used in numbers as the shield allows them to absorb more damage. The TR get....to make themselves bigger targets! That's the point, the other two get a special ability that improves their defensive abilities while not gimping them completely offensively. The TR get one that forces them to sacrifice any offensive ability whatsoever to get damage levels that the other empires enjoy at all times. Factor in that the other empires get the equivalent damage ratings PLUS their special ability PLUS the ability to carry the fight to the enemy, and that's why the TR MAXes are imbalanced. Does being a MAX at the moment just suck in general? Yes, but it sucks to be a TR MAX more than it does to be a VS or NC MAX (since I use all three, it's quite obvious to me at any rate...play much VS or TR over there?)

Originally Posted by BDMJ

The main guns for all tanks are balanced, and no tank is considered an AA platform. Please remind me what you were bitching about again. Get a more realistic conception of tanks and their role in this game, then post again. In the role of infantry and vehicle combat, the prowler is equal to the vanguard or the mag. The third gunner gives it the potential to have even greater firepower.

Now that I feel I have refuted your points regarding balance sufficiently, I think we can get back to the issue at hand.

The Prowler's guns are equivalent to the Vanguard's. Problem is that it's never just Vanguard on Prowler. Reavers eat Prowlers alive because 1) the dual link system doesn't work well on *any* vehicle and 2) getting a 12mm gunner is quite difficult. Compare this to the Vanguard, who uses 20mm guns that are controlled by the one gunner or the Mag, who's main gun is murder on attacking aircraft. You can't isolate your examination to just how the armor performs against armor, but the fact is that the Prowler cannot compete on the battlefield as it has nothing that really sets it apart. The dual 100mms are nice, but the rest of the tank is crap. 1 characteristic out of many being good equates to a rather crappy vehicle. It can't counter aircraft, it can't counter other tanks, it handles like a stuck pig, it can't go over water, you can see it from a mile away beacuse it's so huge and it can't really counter massed infantry that well. What exactly is the Prowler good for then? You can take down individual infantry like a champ, but is that what a battle tank should really be aspiring to?

Originally Posted by BDMJ

I would prefer the devs to give us a real fix rather than pander to the whiners. As I stated earlier, this quick fix mentality is killing the game. After all, what has been hurting the performance of the game the most has been the performance "quick" fixes introduced by the devs. After their optimizations sent the average user's game performance to hell, the devs cut out frames in an attempt to "fix" the problem, giving the high end users the shaft. Why not just roll back the changes? That might require re-doing a patch, so why not just slap a bandaid on it and call it fixed.

So wait...you complain that they're doing a quick fix in the same post that you complain about them taking a long time to fix anything? I hope you realize the irony there. Given that you have no idea how the PS engine works (nor do I, admittedly), please stop trying to comment about the ease of any operations involving it. Roll backs might seem simple, but they seldom are. If there is a problem with the engine itself, it tends to be a complex process to remove it. Since this appears to be a highly involved issue to resolve, I'd rather have a "quick fix" than no fix at all. When the real fix is put in, they can feel free to take the quick fix out...but leaving flaws in a product intentionally when something *could* be done to solve (or at the very least alleviate) the problem for the short-term is idiotic.

Seer · 2004-03-14, 12:17 AM

Eldanesh, you have some basic ideas about rexo, and planetside itself, wrong. An indoors cqb fight against rexo should be hard on a person wearing agile, not 'even.' Maybe in other games a person's skill determines the outcome, but here in planetside the outcome is very much a factor of the terms of engagement. A person's weaponry, armor, and position are all equally as important as skill. Skills like leading, aiming, and situational awareness certainly help, but the skill gap between two players is likely much smaller than the gap between their weapon, armor, and position.

Just ask yourself: do you think a infiltrator taking on a tank with his beamer is going to get by on skill? That's an extreme example, but there are situations in this game that give rise to power differences that can and should nullify differences in skill. As many other posters have stated, PS is a different beast from most FPS games with their ludicrous flying headshots and bunny hopping, etc. PS fights have always been about what you bring to them. You bring the right tools for the job and you'll get it done.

The people who are climbing up the walls over this surge issue can take it or leave it, but I find their refusal to adapt in the face of change evidence of a certain blindness. If the dev team decided to nerf one of my main weapons, like the thumper, to hell, I'd just drop it and win some other way. When I see people so attached to a game mechanic, it sets off alarm bells. Surge is an anomaly amongst the implants--as implemented, it changed the face of the game. Implants are supposed to be nice little devices to kick on when you need them, not the mana of life without which you would die. Obviously something was amiss.

I'm not going to address the surge warp issue. I rarely see warpers, so I think they are changing this because of a deeper problem with surge as they see it. I didn't use or mind surge as it was implemented, but I gather I was in the minority on that. I'm willing to wait to see what happens.

Krinsath · 2004-03-14, 12:36 AM

My predicted course of events:

1) People who rely on surge as their primary combat tactic will complain and moan in the hopes that the Devs will change their mind, even though that has very rarely (if ever) happened once something has reached the "in patch X" phase.

2) The Devs will put the patch on the test server. No talent crybabies will have already cancelled their subscriptions and left. Good players will go to the Test server and see what impact it is really going to have.

3) The changes will go live, about this time the Devs will realize that they've already lost a huge number of players because they didn't do something months ago.

4) People will find something new to bitch about.

5) Repeat number 1 for new object of bitching.

When the Devs nerfed the JH time and time again, I didn't complain, despite the fact that one of my primaries uses the JH quite extensively. I knew that if the JH was not performing as the Devs felt it should (as in the end, they make the desicion on what stays and goes), then that needed to be fixed, even if the weapon or tactics I had used previously weren't as powerful. If you're good, you'll be successful no matter what. If you're not, then yes...taking away the crutch will be a major impact on your performance. Sink or swim time for the surgiles.

BDMJ · 2004-03-14, 02:59 AM

With my JH/lasher comparison, I was not whining about the time it took for them to correct the JH. I was using that to illustrate that giving the right circumstances (public response), the devs can work pretty fast. Other times, for seemingly inexplicable reasons, it takes them far too long.

They have made great changes in a timely manner, and set the bar for themselves. They consistently fail to reach that bar now.

Krinsath · 2004-03-14, 08:24 AM

Lasher 2.0 was prior to the test server being up and working IIRC, hence the Devs didn't get to see how insanely overpowered it was in groups. Didn't take very long to see that one had gone awry.

It wasn't until somebody brought up that 4 shots from a JH killed an agile and severely hurt (if not killed, since damage comes from everywhere in fighting) a Rexo and they could fire 4 shots in >1 second that they said "wait...on a gun that has only three firing chambers, should you really be able to fire 4 shots that quickly?"

That was a combination of game balance and fitting with the story of PS. That was a database bug, and not broken code. There was nothing wrong with the JH itself, but the devs felt the way it was being employed violated the intended use of the weapon.

Surge, likewise, isn't being changed in terms of effects...it's being changed in terms of the conditions surrounding those benefits. At least you have the option to turn it off and immediately draw your weapon, something that MAXes don't have the option of, and the HA weapons are not terribly far behind the MAX weapons. The Devs evidently feel that this is a travel/defense implant, not a cornerstone to someone's strategy implant. No other implant can serve as the basis of your combat strategy, so why should this one be allowed to? Add in that Surge is the most visible trigger of warping for the significant percentage of players who experience that problem at some point or another (and for those people who know who they are...unless you're paying to upgrade everyone's computer...STFU) and you get to why the Devs are now starting to do something.

Why'd they take so long? Who knows. It could be that looking at the implants fell below getting Capitol Buildings (a big project) and various other things in place. Other projects probably included getting Core Combat into a useable state since there is a large percentage of people (98% of those with the expansion) who'd really like to know why they spent an extra $30 (they'd be the unruly mob to your left with pitchforks and torches who are burning Spork in effigy). Both of those were big draws on resources and then add in the current complaints about the Lasher and the TR MAX switch (which didn't really help THAT much..."Yeah, the CoF on the DC is hideous, but it doesn't get any worse the longer you fire!") and the Devs are a busy group. Someone finally decided that yes, the Surge implant was being misused and set about fixing it.

Rayder · 2004-03-14, 09:19 AM

I'm seriously going to miss being able to surge with my Lasher

Marsman · 2004-03-14, 12:57 PM

Well the devs aren't stupid, but they are human too. Sure they missed things or not anticipated something here and there, but for the most part I've found them to be very much aware of most conditions within the game.

The surge problem has been around for a long time and I'm sure the thought of not allowing weapons during surge was considered by the team long ago. Did they take the quick fix then? No. Were they lazy and just toss it in? No. They gave it as much attention as they could to work on correcting the problem. Patch notes reveil that code changes were introduced to "improve" the problem. When the problems continued after those changes, did the just give up and take the easy fix? No. They went back to work on it some more. The total amount of time and fixes spent is proof enough that this isn't easily fixable. Then and only then did they go with the more dramatic solution to the problem. They might even come a day when they refine the code enough for it's return, but it's an effective solution for the moment.

If I seem to be waving the Dev Team flag alot, I guess I am. We have a team of game designers willing to become a part of the gamming community. We know more about what happening with the game in this community because of their involvement than with most other game communities. And yet, we see people basically kick them in the nuts at every step. Perhaps they have had bad experiences with other games and their teams. I've seen plenty that really do appear to not care less. But my every instinct says this team is just as concerned, just as "passionate" about this game as most of this community is. Fortunetly I do see a majority of the community appears to understand all this which give me hope that they'll outlast those who don't.

Planetside is an ever evolving creation. Change is inevitable.

GreyFox · 2004-03-14, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Marsman

Planetside is an ever evolving creation. Change is inevitable.

Indeed. And a good post in general Marsman

Lartnev · 2004-03-14, 01:05 PM

Nothing wrong with waving the Dev team flag

It needs to be done more often on the official boards though

Queensidecastle · 2004-03-14, 03:04 PM

I suppose you could spin it that way if you so desire. The fact of the matter is that I have the luxury of not having to settle for mediocrity since I dont run a fan site that solicits the partacipation of the dev team. This allows me to say exactly what I think. I have praised the Devs in the past for positive changes and I have slammed them for the poor ones. I dont have to pretend every change is a good one when many are in fact not. I understand that It would not make sense for a site such as PSU to be harshly critical of the devs because getting participation from devs is hard enough as it is. Any intelligent person knows that Devs will not participate on a site that would ever criticize them. The proper strategy is praise the devs on good changes and be silent on the really bad ones, and of course avoid any controversial topics altogether. I find this totally acceptable as it is very usefull to have sites that can get dev participation and so in the end it is worth it as long as you take it with a grain of salt.

I personally prefer to take the Lum The Mad approach. I freely praise good changes, and I slam the bad ones. I make no descrimation of a bad Idea just because it is a Dev. If you are wrong, I am just going to flat out tell you you are wrong. If you are right, same thing.

Using the excuse that Planetside is an evolving game is a crutch. It is a way to settle for mediocrity. At some point, Planetside is just not Planetside anymore and that is what this Surge change is. There are some core facets of online games you do not change. This is plain and simply a poor change. It griefs the players, doesnt solve the warping problem and ruins a core aspect of infantry combat that has been in place since release.

It has been clear for a long time that the warping problem keys off Jumping. It is clear that no one complains about surging rexos or surging infiltrators. What you people are doing who are backing this change is advocating mediocrity. You are advocating a wide ranging nerf to deal with a narrowly defined problem. It is quite simply a lack of understanding of the aspects of this problem. It is in pure ignorance that someone would advocate the nerfing of Surge in non-warping related scenario.

Therefore advocating the wholesale nerf of Surge even when understanding the following:

1)Warping still will not be fixed with this proposed change
2)Warping while surging is a problem with jumping
3)Rexos and infiltrators have never been a problem with warping
4)Heavy assault, surge, and Agile/Standard is the exact formula that is causing the problem, not anything else
5)A core style of infantry combat that has been in place for almost a year will get the axe even if it is not related to the specific conditions that cause the problem

can really only mean that eitherYOU cannot adapt to that style of combat and therefore want it nerfed so that you can compete or you simply cannot comprehend what the specifics of this problem actually are.

YOU would advocate Rexos with SA/MA/HA not be able to surge while in combat
YOU would advocate that Infiltrators not be allowed to surge with a Pistol or a boomer out
all just because some Agiles/Standard warp around with Heavy assault. You would advocate all this despite knowing that disableing jumping will solve this issue without the above side effects to gameplay. You would advocate all this despite knowing that turning off surging with Heavy assault would solve this problem, or having Stamina drain out in 5-10 seconds when Heavy assault is equiped.

It is shortsighted. It is ridiculous. Most of all, it is selfish to ruin the gameplay of others by advocating a change even when there are better alternatives, but the most dissapointing of all, is that the Devs would give in to this demand just to shut you up. I have not heard one acceptable argument as to why the Devs should ignor the specific issue with HA/Surge/Agile warp and instead wholesale nerf the way surged has worked as intended since the day of release. If you cant make that argument, dont even bother responding.

That being said I want to appologize for my earlier outburst. So, I appologize to Silverlord and anyone else I might have insulted

Lartnev · 2004-03-14, 03:58 PM

It is shortsighted. It is ridiculous. Most of all, it is selfish to ruin the gameplay of others by advocating a change even when there are better alternatives, but the most dissapointing of all, is that the Devs would give in to this demand just to shut you up. I have not heard one acceptable argument as to why the Devs should ignor the specific issue with HA/Surge/Agile warp and instead wholesale nerf the way surged has worked as intended since the day of release.

And what about my gameplay? What about when I'm guarding a tower in a MAX suit and suddenly an NC surger comes out of nowhere and plants a decimator in my face? Do I not have the right to have at least the opportunity to get a couple of shots off first? People running around the corner and then fading back I can handle, but not just appearing in front of me.

As I've said before, I view surge like the MAX autorun. It's a way to get from A to B as quickly as possible, not necessarily outside, could be from spawn toom to back door, or to the wall. So this change is more in keeping with I think surge should be, holstering you weapon just gives you the opportunity to make the most of the implant. But I also see the other side of the coin, that it's a way of closing the distance to take advantage of CQC weapons such as the Jackhammer and to a lesser extent the other HA weapons. But this warping means that instead of them closing the distance, they jump the distance which means you don't have the chance to at least take advantage of any range advantage you may have while you have it.

I'd like to know what the alternative is? I'm sure the devs would like to know too.

Marsman · 2004-03-14, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Queensidecastle

... The fact of the matter is that I have the luxury of not having to settle for mediocrity since I dont run a fan site that solicits the partacipation of the dev team. This allows me to say exactly what I think.

I and the rest of PSU staff are under no obligation to agree with the devs. As long as comments, good or bad, are contructive then I think anyone and everyone should say "exactly what they think".

I understand that It would not make sense for a site such as PSU to be harshly critical of the devs because getting participation from devs is hard enough as it is. Any intelligent person knows that Devs will not participate on a site that would ever criticize them.

"Unfairly" harshly critical -perhaps, but the devs don't want a false sense of how people feel either. If they deserve some critisizm, by all means speak your mind as long as it's civil. It doesn't get much harsher than the OF, yet they participate there so I don't buy that argument, sorry.

The proper strategy is praise the devs on good changes and be silent on the really bad ones, and of course avoid any controversial topics altogether.

Well that may be your strategy, but I don't think that ours. Sure praise them when the do good, I agree and should be more of that. But to be silent on things that are bad, ah - no. If you don't like something I fully encourage you to say so and will defend to the end your right to say it. That is the right of the community.

It has been clear for a long time that the warping problem keys off Jumping. It is clear that no one complains about surging rexos or surging infiltrators.

Oh really? I think many people have a problem with being attacked with no chance to fight back. Sure the majority of the problems may lie around the issues you mentioned but there are other issues I assure you.

...can really only mean that either YOU cannot adapt to that style of combat ...

Its a little hard to 'adapt' to not being able to fire at a player who only appears on your screen for 1/10 of a sec before warping to another location. It's a little hard to 'adapt' to the quick blink of a cloaker screaming through a spawn room boomering troops for run after run. In such a team game, no one person should be able to cowboy as much as surge allows.

You would advocate all this despite knowing that turning off surging with Heavy assault would solve this problem, or having Stamina drain out in 5-10 seconds when Heavy assault is equiped.

Sorry, I don't know that that would solve all the probems - some no doubt, but as I said before, there are more issues to this besides your specific examples.

I have not heard one acceptable argument as to why the Devs should ignor the specific issue with HA/Surge/Agile warp and instead wholesale nerf the way surged has worked as intended since the day of release.

Your first assumption is that this was the intended way that surge was to work. The Devs have already stated that it was not. The HA surgiles are the most common, most annoying, and therefore have the most attention. Jumping adds to the issue but is not the entire issue. Warping occurs at tops of stairs and with virtually any collision your character flys about. It affects all armors to varying degrees. While I wouldn't call this decision the best solution, it does level the playing field for everyone and turn this back into the team game in which it's intended. If you want a game you can cowboy in and have 50/1 kill/death ratios - you have probably selected the wrong game.

That being said I want to appologize for my earlier outburst. So, I appologize to Silverlord and anyone else I might have insulted

My utmost respect for your cander. We can agree to disagree. Viva La Community.