@AoA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity
"Given a set of circumstances" == premises. Not using the Webster's definition of what a circumstance is. I'm using the philosophical/logic definition of validity.
The reason I tried to structure the thread that way, is because a lot of the stuff you've posted skips the logic. You just jump straight to the conclusion and assume the argument is self-explanatory, so its hard for the rest of us to debate with you. For example:
So the removing bounties promotes saving units. AKA repair pad for tanks or medics.
You can blow this open by simply comparing a bounty mammoth that will give your opponent $200 versus a non-bounty mammoth. You send them both into the same battle, and shit goes down. If you retreat both, both tanks will die. If you do not retreat both mammoths, they will both die. But if you choose to save one mammoth, only the other one will die. Which one do you save, if you choose to do so?
By logic, you can either choose to save the mammoth with the bounty on it, or, you could argue that you save neither mammoth and hope to get as much value as you can. You never save the mammoth without the bounty...if you do so, your opponent gets $200 by killing the bounty mammoth. Therefore, your premise, as written, is false.
If you want to disprove this argument with veterancies, I'll show you why removing the bounty system without altering the veterancy system would cause imbalance.
If you want to try to compare it between two games, one where you have 2 non-bounty mammoth's and the other where you have 2 bounty mammoths, with the same conditions, then you save either one because there is no difference between the two mammoths. But if you chose to sacrifice both mammoths, the non-bounty mammoths have a higher value than the bounty mammoths because they do not give your opponent $400. Since you're more compelled to save the mammoths with the bounties, your premise of "Removing bounties promotes saving units" is false.
Or, if that was actually your argument, i.e, "If you removed bounties, then it promotes saving units." then there is no valid, clear, or self-explanatory connection between removing bounties and saving units. Right now, it reads as "If you removed bounties, then X will happen. Because of X, then people will want to save their units." Asking people to fill-in-the-blank for your own argument is a recipe for disaster. Juicebox may be at fault for losing his calm against you, but a lot of the stuff you're writing is disorienting because you skip your connections and only write the premise with your conclusion.
This is assumption as well. You can easily place other constructions on hold and allow the money to pour into one build queue to finish it off faster. Once built you can then resume other queues. ... The above is repeat incorrectness due to "Placing other queues on hold"
Okay...so what if it is possible to funnel all $600 into one or two queues? How does that make 2' false?:
2' : The money you make from bounties provides additional income to rebuild all assets, not just buildings.
If you get money from bounties, you can use it all for only pillboxes, for pillboxes + infantry, for any combination of units. "Pausing a queue" doesn't make this argument false -- If I pause a queue to build 6 rifles, I still get $600 in assets.
In addition, you can't say that (2'') is incorrect because of "pausing a queue"....
2'' : The money you make from bounties provides additional income to rebuild all assets. Since a strength of basepushing is using all of your assets to attack, therefore, bounties contribute to basepushing.
...if you also support (3), which uses 2''.
3. If (1) is true, and if (2'') is valid, then A) it follows that the winner of an engagement will have more money to rebuild than the loser of an engagement, and B)
the winner will be able to out push the loser. Therefore, bounties are imbalanced and should be removed from the game.
Even if you are right about pausing queues, then pausing a queue and funneling money into certain queues would be the problem -- not bounties. In which case, we just spent 6+ pages talking about something pointless when we really should have been discussing how funneling all of your money into a few queues is imbalanced.
With 3 pillboxes how much money can be earned killing infantry in 5-7 seconds?
Situational, as JuiceBox has already pointed out. And, as SoS has
repeatedly mentioned bounties just exacerbate all losses and highlights all wins. Yes, we know pillboxes are good, which is why I've been complaining about veterancy in pillboxes since I found out that like 6 months ago.
Incorrect. Removal of bounties has had no effect on money making with ore trucks. Tested. On low eco maps the base pushing is popular because you don't lose assets easily with defense structures. AKA killing infantry with defenses for greater outcome. The structures are also repairable while tanks are not. So without bounties on low eco maps it will be about the samething. Holding these spots to keep your eco going.
Since the removal of bounties has had no effect on total income from ore trucks (RA, not TD i hope), why should we care about the money we get from bounties then? If it has no effect, and you tested it, why change it at all? And from everything you've posted, shouldn't you be more concerned with the
effectiveness of basepushing itself rather than the money you get from basepushing? I'm not the only one that thinks this, and I'm sure Orb is not the only one either:
Orb wrote: It's like you ignored what Soscared said. Bounty is not the root cause of imbalance. Base pushing is not effective due to bounty. It's effective because its cost effective, which is then reflected in bounties. Removing bounties will not fix the core imbalance issues you have with the game.
___
The video you sent between anjew vs Norman was an extreme case -- both players lost their MCVs, and so they lost their ability to expand their economy. Yes, norman was just turtling and using Air units to snipe everything, but where exactly do the bounties matter?
In addition, there was no way anjew could muster an economy capable of breaching a MRLS/Mammoth/Orca turtle. To me, the equilvalent to this in RA would be two players having lost both their MCVs, with one trying to brute force their way into an arty/pillbox line. Of course the player with higher tech is going to win out.
TD is already a completely different game, especially regarding power and economy.On top of that, Norman had an Ion cannon that instantly deleted large chunks of anjew's forces everytime anjew tried to make something happen. I'm not a TD player, so I don't expect anything about what I said about TD to be accurate.