"I do, actually. However you are backtracking on your own words! You *initially* defended keeping the vanilla tank. *Then* our conversation flowed to a middle ground (cannon)."
That's because I was directly replying to your comment where you said "green army and grey ship", so I replied in kind. Hell, I even put QUOTES around it in my message to show that I was referring to YOUR message. Literally my next message on the thread says:
"I still would argue that those shapes aren't intuitive like an actual tank (or cannon or soldier) and ship are"
So unless you're making the claim that I was "defending" the vanilla tank by simply replying with your exact words, then your point is baseless. Not to mention, I was only referring to the tank/ship in terms of how easy it was to differentiate between the two, not explicitly saying "TANK ONLY!!!!!!".
"You do need to work on your reading comprehension: I said multiple times before that the cannon is very reasonable."
Ok, again, taking things out of context. This is a pretty blatant attempt to misconstrue my words. My quote about reading comprehension had nothing to do with you talking about the cannon being reasonable. It was about you not understanding and misstating my position despite me laying it out at least 6 times in this thread. Two completely different things. Again, cherry-pick much?
"Of course I am."
Ok, then if you are paying attention to what I'm saying, why have you miscontrue my stance on the subject which has been consistent (except as noted above when I was directly quoting you) throughout the thread? Either you're not paying attention, or you're deliberately misleading. Which is it?
"Of course I am. Not sure about you though: you completely discarded @Firehawk's spot-on reply on page 2:
<Firehawk's quote which will be answered below>
You didn't dare answer this either. Hehehe."
Cool, Firehawk made a statement while I was in the middle of a 12 hour Saturday work shift on a construction site at O'Hare Airport. I'll happily reply now and explain why I ignored it earlier:
"I think it's clear there is certainly no overwhelming consensus to change the icons so this question is resolved!" <- Of course there isn't. We've mentioned in this thread how vDip doesn't have a very active userbase in the forum. There will *never* be overwhelming consensus on the forum unless site admins somehow get the whole site involved.
"Of course I was always going to have to argue for my own icons but at the end of the day I think the strength of this site is for developers to create variation in to map design. There's no problem having different units for different maps because that's part of what makes them different, and allows the creators to add flair to them." <- Cool, that's all his opinion. Especially the last sentence the "no problem" part.
"Lets just leave all icons however the original creators chose to design them! If it aint broke and all that :)" <- Umm, isn't that kinda what this entire thread is about? So I *am* responding to that.
Happy now?
"There is still hope for you then. =D"
You know, it's these types of responses that make some of us think you're just being a snarky asshole. We're all (generally) polite people who like to play the same board game. With all due respect, that doesn't make us friends, and it doesn't mean we appreciate getting sass from other people like this. Same goes with the nicknames. That's something friends do, not essentially strangers on a game forum. (For the record, Drano is *already* a nickname, so yeah)
"I believe a random person knows square means army if they can read the subtitles nicely put bellow every map on vDip, alongside the orders interface. And I think we got more than enough evidence that yes, they *can* correctly identify the new icons as long as they can read (though yes, mistakes can happen)."
We have 28 games, hardly enough of a sample size to make this assertation. More importantly though, you literally just said mistakes can happen when referring to people correctly identifying the new icons. Either you don't really mean that, or..... /thread
"Your argument ultimately does not sustain itself. I am playing a game of one of the variants using the new icons, I actively talk to all players every single season, and no one among us had a problem with the icons. If anyone did, it certainly didn't have any impact of notice and thus is the smallest of problems, one I may choose to ignore when porting variants."
So, your anecdotal experience is now the definitive authority on whether there's a problem? I mean, you are claiming that if anyone had a problem (referring to the game you're in), it didn't have any impact, and thus is the "smallest of problems", one you can ignore. I seem to recall someone in this thread talking about something like this...ah yes! "That's your word - why would I believe you?" Are you really making the claim that just because your game is ok, it's all good? Because that's what it looks like you're doing.
"And again, lack of standardization didn't set the website aflame. The abstract icons work just fine."
Very little will "set the website aflame". If you're making the claim that it has to set the website bonkers before it's a problem, that's ridiculous. Just the fact that we have this long thread discussing it (where now 6 people have discussed opposing viewpoints to yours - me, YCHTT, RUFFHAUS (whatever you want to say about him, he was supporting me and my view and I'm sure he'd be happy to clarify that), JECE, Mercy, and G-Man) shows that there is clearly some sort of opposition to it. Vdip as a whole doesn't go crazy over things. A small percentage of people participate in the forum who may make their opinion known. And I believe 6 out of 8 people in this thread have come down on the side opposite of yours. That says something.
"2) I doubt you have the age you claim to have given the ridiculous affirmations so far, but I reserve you the benefit of the doubt... to a short extent."
Based on what you told me of your age Enriador, YCHTT is indeed more than double your age based on statements he made long ago that I have read that he was in the military from 84-88. Sure, he could be making a false persona over many years, but he had no reason to lie before, so barring asking for a birth certificate, I'm going to choose to believe him. Otherwise, if we have to assume we can't believe people, I'll have to assume the age you told me isn't true either, and maybe perhaps you're a 15 year old? Who knows?!?!
"3) Why the bizarre 'ad hominem' attack?"
To be fair, you've been making comments that come off as extremely snarky (to me at least) for much of the thread Enriador, so yeah, what goes around comes around?