Lessons from recent IE playthroughs

[aluminiumtrioxid]

You see my dear, in the world of sentient beings, memory is not an unknown feat. It may seem like (soul) magic to you, but it really isn't.

 

The fact that you have specifically memorized the exact topic said post has appeared in for future-use-in-discrediting may seem to you like something that magically makes it all extremely rational and not-creepy, but sadly, I must inform you that out there in real world that doesn't run on insane troll logic, it still looks pretty bad. Please accept my deepest condolences 

 

 

I'm also aware that this has turned into your cry for help, as well.

 

Well it kinda did turn into a cry for help with all the sulking and fairly sad attempts at trolling a few posts ago, but I'm pretty sure those cries for help are neither mine, nor PJ's. *pats head*

 

 

Sadly though, this whole thing is really veering into off-topic territory, and while I'd like nothing more than help you work through all the traumas the cruel world has heaped on you by giving you the much-coveted attention you have probably never gotten from those closest to you, I'm kind of afraid that if this continues for much longer, the mods, who seem to be in a perpetual state of hybernation, finally take notice and close this thread, depriving you of a much-needed release valve through which you could spew your uniquely entertaining brand of insanity. And that would be an irreplaceable loss for the world at large indeed.

 

Please do continue without me, don't mind the fact that no one's listening, though. 

Edited May 24, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[PrimeJunta]

I'll gladly pass you the crown of the victor if it's so important for you, but let me help you, please.

Having a compulsion to torture yourself is not healthy, PJ.

 

Sending me a PM was the right step, yes, but I'd prefer to discuss it in public. Surely, there will be other people with valuable suggestions and helpful advices regarding your self-torture issues.

I am touched by your concern -- really -- and flattered that you want to make this thread all about poor little me, but really, Valorian, I don't merit the attention. So thank you for your kind offer, but I am going to decline it.

[Valorian]

 

You see my dear, in the world of sentient beings, memory is not an unknown feat. It may seem like (soul) magic to you, but it really isn't.

I'm also aware that this has turned into your cry for help, as well.

 

The fact that you have specifically memorized the exact topic said post has appeared in for future-use-in-discrediting

 

Sweetykitty! :D Memory doesn't work like that. How could I explain the concept of memory to a member of an almost-sentient species.. hmm. Let's say that PJ's cry for help was quite impactful and, I have to admit, a little bit amusing.

We also have this very useful thing called search engines so you can search for all kinds of stuff with key words. It mostly takes a few seconds, really.

 

Also, why do you imply that PJ's words discredit him? Do not use this evil word. His cry for help does not discredit him. He just needs our help to end his self-torture.

 

 

finally take notice and close this thread,

Sweetykitty! You'd rather see this topic closed, shutting down your espionage RPG project, than let me help you and PJ? But, you assured me that everything is okay and your violent tantrums are a thing of the past!?

[Valorian]

 

I'll gladly pass you the crown of the victor if it's so important for you, but let me help you, please.

Having a compulsion to torture yourself is not healthy, PJ.

 

Sending me a PM was the right step, yes, but I'd prefer to discuss it in public. Surely, there will be other people with valuable suggestions and helpful advices regarding your self-torture issues.

I am touched by your concern -- really -- and flattered that you want to make this thread all about poor little me, but really, Valorian, I don't merit the attention. So thank you for your kind offer, but I am going to decline it.

 

Please, is there anything I could do to change your mind? I'd really like to help you overcome the urge to torture yourself with RPGs. 

 

Perhaps.. hmm..

Reputation and influence systems are very similar to espionage/encounter-scaling systems as proposed by sweetykitty. Almost identical, really. There's no reason to dislike one system, if you like the other.

 

Is this good enough? You win! I'm sending you the 'victor of debate crown' as we speak, but please let me help you now. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I hardly feel like interrupting you, guys, but this thread has slightly different purpose if I recall it right. You know, other than insulting each other.

 

Well, in the interest of newbie education, I feel I should point out that what happened here is kind of our friend Val's modus operandi.

Step 1: find something utterly inconsequential to bitch about (including, but not limited to, developer updates - I still remember the hissy fits he threw when PE's "no xp for killing" feature was announced). Step 2: present an argument in the most insulting and condescending manner that is humanly possible. Step 3: offer no counterarguments when said arguments are proven wrong, start insulting those who offered said counterarguments. (Usually the ratio of flawed arguments to insults and increasingly hysterical assertions of supposed, but thus far unobserved intellectual superiority starts at 1:1 and steadily climbs into the 1:100-ish range.) Step 4: hope that the noise provided drowns out any attempts at intellectual discussion in the future. (???) Step 5: profit!

 

So far no scientific explanations have emerged as to the whys of this behavior. Some theorize that he needs to do it in order to appease the dark gods he's sold his soul to, while others maintain the stance that it is necessary for his continued existence - while this seems like a weakness at first sight, it's speculated that given otherwise adequate living conditions, he could survive for years only on the attention his trolling attempts garner him, and the life energy he seemingly drains from the ruined husks of derailed conversations.

 

Sadly, no theory could be proven until someone gets his hands to a live specimen and vivisects him (therefore making the world a more pleasant place for all to live in).

Edited May 24, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Valorian]

 

I hardly feel like interrupting you, guys, but this thread has slightly different purpose if I recall it right. You know, other than insulting each other.

 

 I still remember 

 

 

You still remember? Wasn't memory off-limits in your universe? 

[ManifestedISO]

at and pj clear victors. I was gonna give at double points for a mic-drop exit, but he came back. 

 

Definitely the most well-spelled back-and-forth this year, at least. 

[Sarex]

at and pj clear victors. I was gonna give at double points for a mic-drop exit, but he came back. 

 

Definitely the most well-spelled back-and-forth this year, at least. 

 

So great to have you to help us decide the "winners", don't know what we would have done without you.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

at and pj clear victors. I was gonna give at double points for a mic-drop exit, but he came back. 

 

Definitely the most well-spelled back-and-forth this year, at least. 

 

So great to have you to help us decide the "winners", don't know what we would have done without you.

 

 

Well, the thread did devolve into flinging insults at each other, so I guess either "everybody lost" or "Team Troll won" would be applicable.

[Valorian]

 

I hardly feel like interrupting you, guys, but this thread has slightly different purpose if I recall it right. You know, other than insulting each other.

 

 

 

Sadly, no theory could be proven until someone gets his hands to a live specimen and vivisects him (therefore making the world a more pleasant place for all to live in).

 

 

Maybe if you nicely ask your grandma to give you the cellar key, and the other one for your chains... I dunno, maybe she will let you satiate your urges to kill things in the garden? 

[Yellow Rabbit]

Well, in the interest of newbie education, I feel I should point out that what happened here is kind of our friend Val's modus operandi.

Whoa. That's a tough one. Maybe seeking for scientific explanations of this behavior should be delivered to a scientist? Say, someone with "psy-" as a prefix in speciality name. Then again he could only make it worse, they're all kind of nuts.

 

But I really do like your idea about way to make world a better place for living. I don't think this method should be applied to Valorian, I have no real reason to think he is that bad [yet], but the idea itself sounds like a very good one.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Could we try not moving the goalposts? You were fighting against the idea that the opponent doesn't use his strongest spells, I've never advocated for him to do so. That is all there is to it.

 

I was advocating for him not having important lieutenants and minions and buffs at all* if you manage to protect yourself against scrying and kill his spies, in which case it is fairly reasonable to assume that you do manage to catch him unprepared and with his pants down. Mind you, enemies who are extremely paranoid and walk everywhere fully buffed and with a full cadre of bodyguards should exist, but maybe they should not be the norm.

 

 

For someone who is asking not to move the goalposts, you're doing a stellar job at it with nearly every point you bring up.

 

And not having his lieutenants and minions and not buffed was due to scrying and his spies. An easy exploitable way for the player to exploit the boss battle by playing dumb, purposefully using low level spells and abilities to make the boss encounter easier than it should be. This is something you don't want to accept. And there's no logical reason from you why a boss would decide to not be buffed and not have his minions and lieutenants with him in the boss fight. A totally ridiculous boss encounter for him to be alone and unbuffed.

 

 

By the way, this...

 

In light of this...

 

...is sending a bit of mixed signals. 

 

Well what we can get from this is that you're changing the encounter and as a player, you're finding the easiest and most efficient way to get past it by exploiting the game to make it easier for you. And there is no logic why a boss in a boss fight wouldn't have his minions and lieutenants and is not buffed.

 

The system, paired with both ****ty character advancement and ****ty encounter design is indeed exploitable.

 

I've never been clamoring for either ****ty character advancement, nor ****ty encounter design. In fact, I have even pointed out that you have to be careful when designing the advancement system and the encounters, you have to take the dynamic AI into account.

 

That said, I believe that in order for a system to be exploitable in the pejorative sense you seem to use the word in, it needs to work in a manner that was unintended by its creator. If you "exploit" a system that is intended to model human error, that means the system is doing what it was designed for! 

 

Now you're moving the goalposts. The system is exploitable because you can make the encounters easier by knowing what spells/abilities not to use and to get an outcome from the game that shouldn't be intended. If you have a boss with minions and lieutenants compared to a boss without minions and lieutenants, the xp rewards is the same. Because PoE is quest based, not xp kill based. If the high level loot is the same in both examples because the high level loot is with the boss and not his companions, then there's no reason to go into the fight with his minions/lieutenants. Also, if you game the system by using low level spells and abilities, the boss isn't going to be buffed. So now you've found the optimal and easiest way of gaming the encounter. That's exploiting the system. And I hardly think that was what was intended and designed for!

 

 

 

Engaging in completely unnecessary and not at all helpful nitpicking, then when you are being called out on the fact that you were engaging in completely unnecessary and not at all helpful nitpicking, accusing the other party of changing the topic is apparently not playing victim.

 

I'm not going to argue over that, but it does seem to me that you have a strange definition of 'playing a victim'. 

 

I wasn't nitpicking at all. I honestly think you have no idea and don't know or unsure what you're rambling about. You say words like, "I'm not really sure". That tells me you don't really know. I'm calling you out and not only are you getting defensive, you've did a complete opposite of what you preached by attacking me. I'm not playing the victim, I'm showing the hypocrisy of your stance. And when I say perhaps practice what you preach to keep this on topic, you still want to take this off topic. It does seem strange you want to keep going off topic and talk about the people and not the points now. tsk tsk.

 

 

 

So apparently neither The Princess Bride, nor Michael Strogoff (which seems more than appropriate, considering the relatively 'modern' feel of PoE), nor The Silmarillion are valid examples. 

 

- The Princess Bride, "I am not left handed" scene.

- in Michael Strogoff, the titular character pretends to be blind during about half of the book in order to reveal that he can see perfectly during the final battle

- in The Silmarillion (again, large scale battle example) the whole of Nirnaeth Arnoedidad could be considered as such, from the whole setup of "luring the enemy to attack by showing them a less numerous force while our main army stands in waiting" to the "pull out the dragons at the climax of the battle" ending.

- Anime/manga: almost every single battle in Bleach, but especially everything featuring Yumichika, who even has a half-released state of his zanpakutou. Naruto and the Rock Lee versus Garra fight with the leg weights. YuYu Hakusho has Karashu who leads his opponent to believe that his power is making things he touches explode, when in reality it is making invisible bombs anywhere (cue curbstomp). "This isn't even my final form." etc., more examples in the link. 

 

And refer to my example above with the boss fight and having and not having his minions and lieutenants. This is not about literature where you the reader or as a viewer of TV shows cannot change the story. This is a crpg where you as the player can change the outcome by exploiting the game. As I said previously, you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

 

 

I fail to see how anybody could think that a fantasy game with heroes using soul magic could relegate said soul magic-using heroes to being capable of LESS than people in real life.

 

(Also, "this is a fantasy RPG" pretty much comes with the assumption that it intends to emulate certain genre tropes, but that's not really relevant right now.)

 

 

So heroes in a crpg can do anything that people can do in real life? Oh god, this is hilarious.

[tajerio]

I think the principal lesson here is that the IE games have become all things to all people.

[Fatback]

I think this sub system design of enemy encounters is the definition overly designing a game. If you want encounters to change enemy types it should be done threw quest triggers as opposed to these "scouts" while mildly entertaining to think about are really just Boolean variables that open up an array of inventory and spells converted to Strings.

 

And more than Likely buggy as hell.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Fatback

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

For someone who is asking not to move the goalposts, you're doing a stellar job at it with nearly every point you bring up.

 

 

I totally mean this in a non-insulting manner but what the hell are you talking about.

 

I have repeatedly made all of my points abundantly clear before you started asking questions. It is not really my fault you didn't actually read my posts and react with total surprise when I reiterate points I have made earlier.

 

 

And not having his lieutenants and minions and not buffed was due to scrying and his spies. An easy exploitable way for the player to exploit the boss battle by playing dumb, purposefully using low level spells and abilities to make the boss encounter easier than it should be. This is something you don't want to accept. 

 

Hell yes I don't want to accept the fact that you're not just putting words in my mouth, you are doing your damnedest to cram entire paragraphs down my throat. Reacting to things I actually wrote instead of strawmen you construct in your head would help immensely in the "not waste my time at 1:00 in the morning" department.

 

 

And there's no logical reason from you why a boss would decide to not be buffed and not have his minions and lieutenants with him in the boss fight. 

 

So, verisimilitude is not a good enough reason for you. Good to know.

 

Surprising as it may sound, buffs are generally not things you put up in the morning and then forget about. They come with time limits. An opponent who repeatedly uses scrying to no effect and has his spies reporting to him that they see no enemy around will not put up buffs for no reason when there are no enemies around, because they would expire and then his spell slots would be wasted - possibly hours before an actual attack commences.

 

Keeping your lieutenants near you at all time, when you see no enemy approaching at all also seems counterintuitive, when they could both be spending their time usefully (say, training the troops on the courtyard, for example, just so you can easily reach them when they are needed) and not be underfoot while you are doing your best to entertain guests or do sensitive experiments or any other thing where having 6 feet tall guys in a plate mail around would not be helpful at all.

 

I will repeat myself for the nth time, again: when the opponent has his spies reporting your activity to him, he would of course do something to deal with the problem you pose. This "doing something", however, would entail less severe countermeasures if he sees you as less of a threat. (Say, he sends a lieutenant towards you alongside a few minions if you've showed yourself to be a threat that can be dealt with by that, or call all the lieutenants and minions to him if you're calling down a small-sized magical apocalypse on his garden.)

 

Have you tried looking at NPCs from a standpoint where they are more than a statblock running around, waiting to be slaughtered?

 

 

 

By the way, this...

 

[OMITS A HUGE CHUNK OF TEXT WHERE I QUOTED A POST IN WHICH HE IS TALKING ABOUT HOW HORRIBLE IT WOULD BE IF ENEMIES WOULD CHANGE THEIR TACTICS BASED ON WHAT THEY SAW YOU DOING]

 

In light of this...

 

[OMITS A SMALLER CHUNK OF TEXT WHERE I QUOTED A POST IN WHICH HE IS TALKING ABOUT HOW ENTIRELY REASONABLE IT IS TO ASSUME THAT ENEMIES WOULD CHANGE THEIR TACTICS BASED ON WHAT THEY SAW YOU DOING. Or the other way around. It's almost two in the morning, I won't look it up.]

 

...is sending a bit of mixed signals. 

 

Well what we can get from this is that you're changing the encounter and as a player, you're finding the easiest and most efficient way to get past it by exploiting the game to make it easier for you. And there is no logic why a boss in a boss fight wouldn't have his minions and lieutenants and is not buffed.

 

 

"Start talking about something totally unrelated when the I point out that you have just argued vehemently both for and against something I've never even mentioned" is not a thing I will just let slide without commenting on it. 

 

I think you should feel a bit embarrassed. This kind of made you look like a fool, and that's really the nicest way I can phrase it.

 

 

Now you're moving the goalposts.

 

The system is exploitable because you can make the encounters easier by knowing what spells/abilities not to use and to get an outcome from the game that shouldn't be intended.

 

If you have a boss with minions and lieutenants compared to a boss without minions and lieutenants, the xp rewards is the same. Because PoE is quest based, not xp kill based. If the high level loot is the same in both examples because the high level loot is with the boss and not his companions, then there's no reason to go into the fight with his minions/lieutenants.

 

Also, if you game the system by using low level spells and abilities, the boss isn't going to be buffed. So now you've found the optimal and easiest way of gaming the encounter. That's exploiting the system. And I hardly think that was what was intended and designed for!

 

...How exactly?

 

Which is not necessarily a problem inherent in adaptive AI. You would get the same outcome by having a static encounter, seeing what kind of abilities the enemy uses, reloading, and purposefully using abilities that counter those used by your opponent. Yet this is called strategy, while basically playing Xanatos Speed Chess during the encounters that adapt to your strengths is somehow not.

 

And for about the fifth time, this was never about PoE. Refer to the post in which I have laid out the basics of the system.

 

Yes, controlling the circumstances of a fight in order to achieve optimal results is also something I would consider strategic. Players should be rewarded for efficiency, not for purposefully shooting themselves in the leg. Any system that incentivizes choosing a path that would be considered suboptimal by the characters for metagame reasons (say, one that has a transdimensional portal which spills forth an unlimited number of creatures that can be slain indefinitely for infinite XP, therefore rewarding the decision to not deal with the possibly world-threatening menace) is badly designed. At least if your goal is to reward players for actually roleplaying (a reasonable assumption in something called a role-playing game*). 

 

And, for the nth time, I repeat myself yet again, if you make your presence known and use low-level spells and abilities that means the boss will still be prepared, have his lieutenants and minions (or a fraction of them, depending on the characterisation of said boss) around him and some generic buffs up and running, while yes, he won't have specific protections against the big spells you didn't use. This would also mean that you'd have a really ****ing hard time surviving the encounters that lead up to the boss fight (including a fight with the lieutenant he just sent out to deal with you).

 

 

 

I wasn't nitpicking at all. I honestly think you have no idea and don't know or unsure what you're rambling about. You say words like, "I'm not really sure". That tells me you don't really know. 

 

[etc stuff about being attacked which I think doesn't really hold water but am too tired to argue about]

 

 

Would you feel really insulted if I said that this is probably because you did not actually understand the context of what I wrote refused to engage with the text I wrote? If yes, I apologize, please disregard.

 

Anyways, point is, tone is hard to convey through a written medium, I might have been snarkier while answering your not-exactly-nice assumption which I thought was purposefully inflammatory but apparently not.

Let's leave it at that, because your generally antagonistic style and usage of words loaded with strongly negative connotations like "rambling" made it a reasonable assumption, and I refuse to apologize for things I'm not exactly responsible for.

 

The message to take home is, in the end, is that if you don't want people to assume that you are being antagonistic, go out of your way to ensure that they will see you as polite and respectful.

 

(An alternate explanation that I can think of is that you may be unaware of precise shades of meaning like the difference between "rambling" and "talking" about something, likely because you are not a native speaker. In this case, the message to take away is "work on your english". Aside from minor hiccups like this, it is fairly good, by the way.)

 

 

And refer to my example above with the boss fight and having and not having his minions and lieutenants. This is not about literature where you the reader or as a viewer of TV shows cannot change the story. This is a crpg where you as the player can change the outcome by exploiting the game. As I said previously, you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

What the hell are you even talking about.

 

You have actually reached a point where I am simply unable to follow your logic. Being the generally polite sort of person I am, I will not voice my opinion that this is because you are not making even a modicum of sense, and will instead ask you to elaborate, please. (Also it is really late now and tearing apart your argument as it stands right now would take up my whole morning because it's so riddled with holes I could write pages about it and still only touch the surface.)

 

 

So heroes in a crpg can do anything that people can do in real life?   Oh god, this is hilarious. 

 

I don't really see what could possibly be hilarious about the assumption that if it would make sense for a character to take an action in a given situation in order to solve a problem set by the game, and that action could be taken by any random person with the knowledge and abilities of the character, you should be provided with an option to take that action. Do enlighten me.

 

 

 

 

*Yes, yes, I'm aware, you might want to play a suicidal or simply idiotic character because those offer unique opportunities to shut the **** up. Mod it in to let the player choose an appropriate trait that comes with specific downsides while also granting you extra XP for acting like a suicidal idiot instead of wasting developer time and resources on balancing a feature that holds little to no interest for the majority of your audience. Also, nice try to derail, hypothetical Internet person!

Edited May 25, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I totally mean this in a non-insulting manner but what the hell are you talking about.

 

I have repeatedly made all of my points abundantly clear before you started asking questions. It is not really my fault you didn't actually read my posts and react with total surprise when I reiterate points I have made earlier.

 

Ah, the 'x but y' tactic used by people who really mean the opposite to what they say before the 'but'. Your true colours are showing.

 

And yes, you've made it abundantly clear that you want gimped boss fights due to exploits.

 

 

 

Hell yes I don't want to accept the fact that you're not just putting words in my mouth, you are doing your damnedest to cram entire paragraphs down my throat. Reacting to things I actually wrote instead of strawmen you construct in your head would help immensely in the "not waste my time at 1:00 in the morning" department.

 

 

I'm not putting words in your mouth when I quote your words. You want a boss to be unbuffed and not have his lieutenants or minions with him if you, in your words deceive the game, and in my words exploit the game. This would be a great thing for solo players. I'll just take my solo player through the game, deceiving the game that I'm a low level mage and not have to worry about lieutenants and minions in boss fights. You've now made it easier to solo this game. That's exploiting the game that the designers didn't intend to happen. But apparently, you think that's what was intended.

 

And it's your prerogative to waste your time at 1:00am in the morning. Don't put the blame onto me because you're staying up all night debating on an internet forum. Seriously, that's LOL stuff and shows the type of person you are. You're actually the very definition of the internet caricature of people trying to win debates on the internet and staying up all night/morning. Must win debate against internet person at 1.00am because... ???

 

 

 

So, verisimilitude is not a good enough reason for you. Good to know.

 

Surprising as it may sound, buffs are generally not things you put up in the morning and then forget about. They come with time limits. An opponent who repeatedly uses scrying to no effect and has his spies reporting to him that they see no enemy around will not put up buffs for no reason when there are no enemies around, because they would expire and then his spell slots would be wasted - possibly hours before an actual attack commences.

 

Keeping your lieutenants near you at all time, when you see no enemy approaching at all also seems counterintuitive, when they could both be spending their time usefully (say, training the troops on the courtyard, for example, just so you can easily reach them when they are needed) and not be underfoot while you are doing your best to entertain guests or do sensitive experiments or any other thing where having 6 feet tall guys in a plate mail around would not be helpful at all.

 

I will repeat myself for the nth time, again: when the opponent has his spies reporting your activity to him, he would of course do something to deal with the problem you pose. This "doing something", however, would entail less severe countermeasures if he sees you as less of a threat. (Say, he sends a lieutenant towards you alongside a few minions if you've showed yourself to be a threat that can be dealt with by that, or call all the lieutenants and minions to him if you're calling down a small-sized magical apocalypse on his garden.)

 

Have you tried looking at NPCs from a standpoint where they are more than a statblock running around, waiting to be slaughtered?

 

 

Verisimilitude is not having a boss send away his minions and lieutenants and be unbuffed to face a party of 6 adventurers on his own.

 

Also, if you're citing verisimilitude then Generals in the military don't have lieutenants and minions with him? Seems like a stupid thing for an army to do to have a General be all alone and not having any protection to protect one of the most important people in their army. Yep, if I go to a military base that's sending out spies to look for people that pose a threat to that base and the general in question, the general will think it's quite all right to be alone with no lieutenants or minions around him. Just sitting alone. Quite the opposite. The General will have his lieutenants and soldiers with him and would be foolish not to prepare for some type of attack.

 

Have you tried looking at NPCs from a standpoint where they are more intelligent than just plain dumb?

 

 

 

"Start talking about something totally unrelated when the I point out that you have just argued vehemently both for and against something I've never even mentioned" is not a thing I will just let slide without commenting on it. 

 

I think you should feel a bit embarrassed. This kind of made you look like a fool, and that's really the nicest way I can phrase it. 

 

So you didn't comment on boss fights without minions and lieutenants because you were able to deceive the game. Your original post I quoted says otherwise.

 

 

 

...How exactly?

 

Which is not necessarily a problem inherent in adaptive AI. You would get the same outcome by having a static encounter, seeing what kind of abilities the enemy uses, reloading, and purposefully using abilities that counter those used by your opponent. Yet this is called strategy, while basically playing Xanatos Speed Chess during the encounters that adapt to your strengths is somehow not.

 

And for about the fifth time, this was never about PoE. Refer to the post in which I have laid out the basics of the system.

 

Yes, controlling the circumstances of a fight in order to achieve optimal results is also something I would consider strategic. Players should be rewarded for efficiency, not for purposefully shooting themselves in the leg. Any system that incentivizes choosing a path that would be considered suboptimal by the characters for metagame reasons (say, one that has a transdimensional portal which spills forth an unlimited number of creatures that can be slain indefinitely for infinite XP, therefore rewarding the decision to not deal with the possibly world-threatening menace) is badly designed. At least if your goal is to reward players for actually roleplaying (a reasonable assumption in something called a role-playing game*). 

 

And, for the nth time, I repeat myself yet again, if you make your presence known and use low-level spells and abilities that means the boss will still be prepared, have his lieutenants and minions (or a fraction of them, depending on the characterisation of said boss) around him and some generic buffs up and running, while yes, he won't have specific protections against the big spells you didn't use. This would also mean that you'd have a really ****ing hard time surviving the encounters that lead up to the boss fight (including a fight with the lieutenant he just sent out to deal with you).

 

 

 

Adaptive A.I. is easily exploitable in games like this. It would be even more exploitable in my 'solo example' above. You can make the game easier by exploiting the A.I. That is not good game design. And rewarding players for exploits truly baffles me. There's nothing strategic about exploits.

 

And for the nth time, you are now changing what you said. This is what you said, "he doesn't have all his important minions and lieutenants with him and didn't put up buffs that provide protection against your favorite attacks". Now you're saying, "the boss will still be prepared, have his lieutenants and minions..."

 

Backtracking and changing what you said isn't helping your argument.

 

 

 

Would you feel really insulted if I said that this is probably because you did not actually understand the context of what I wrote refused to engage with the text I wrote? If yes, I apologize, please disregard.

 

Anyways, point is, tone is hard to convey through a written medium, I might have been snarkier while answering your not-exactly-nice assumption which I thought was purposefully inflammatory but apparently not.

Let's leave it at that, because your generally antagonistic style and usage of words loaded with strongly negative connotations like "rambling" made it a reasonable assumption, and I refuse to apologize for things I'm not exactly responsible for.

 

The message to take home is, in the end, is that if you don't want people to assume that you are being antagonistic, go out of your way to ensure that they will see you as polite and respectful.

 

(An alternate explanation that I can think of is that you may be unaware of precise shades of meaning like the difference between "rambling" and "talking" about something, likely because you are not a native speaker. In this case, the message to take away is "work on your english". Aside from minor hiccups like this, it is fairly good, by the way.)

 

 

I totally mean this in a non-insulting manner but, what we have here is you are a hypocrite, likes to preach to others about don't attack the person, attack the points and when you engage in debate, you do the opposite by attacking the person and continue to attack the person. Well done. I think you should feel a bit embarrassed. This kind of made you look like a fool, and that's really the nicest way I can phrase it. See what I did there. At least we both know who the hypocrite is and it's not me.

 

 

What the hell are you even talking about.

 

You have actually reached a point where I am simply unable to follow your logic. Being the generally polite sort of person I am, I will not voice my opinion that this is because you are not making even a modicum of sense, and will instead ask you to elaborate, please. (Also it is really late now and tearing apart your argument as it stands right now would take up my whole morning because it's so riddled with holes I could write pages about it and still only touch the surface.) 

 

Well it's really simple. Comparing TV shows, movies, comics to crpg is like comparing apples to oranges. If you're going to use analogies, then try and keep it in context and not red herrings. You haven't torn apart my argument at all. If anything, you've been moving the goal posts all over the place that your argument falls down.

 

 

 

I don't really see what could possibly be hilarious about the assumption that if it would make sense for a character to take an action in a given situation in order to solve a problem set by the game, and that action could be taken by any random person with the knowledge and abilities of the character, you should be provided with an option to take that action. Do enlighten me.

 

*Yes, yes, I'm aware, you might want to play a suicidal or simply idiotic character because those offer unique opportunities to shut the **** up. Mod it in to let the player choose an appropriate trait that comes with specific downsides while also granting you extra XP for acting like a suicidal idiot instead of wasting developer time and resources on balancing a feature that holds little to no interest for the majority of your audience. Also, nice try to derail, hypothetical Internet person!

 

 

One thing is hilarious is that you think crpgs are capable of doing the same things as in real life. Oh, you're one of the promancers are you not? I bet you think romances in crpgs are just like real life.

 

I know you might want to play your game as the Village idiot with your unintelligent drone companions and don't let me stop you. I'm sure tactically and strategically, you can play as an idiot and deceive the boss encounters by having the boss unbuffed with no minions and lieutenants to help him out. Yes, I can see how to some people that might be tactical and strategic and offering diversity. For me, I'd rather not have those sort of exploits in games.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Silent Winter]

Verisimilitude is not having a boss send away his minions and lieutenants and be unbuffed to face a party of 6 adventurers on his own.

 

Also, if you're citing verisimilitude then Generals in the military don't have lieutenants and minions with him? Seems like a stupid thing for an army to do to have a General be all alone and not having any protection to protect one of the most important people in their army. Yep, if I go to a military base that's sending out spies to look for people that pose a threat to that base and the general in question, the general will think it's quite all right to be alone with no lieutenants or minions around him. Just sitting alone. Quite the opposite. The General will have his lieutenants and soldiers with him and would be foolish not to prepare for some type of attack.

Leaving aside the specifics of whoever else said exactly what earlier - I'd just like to deal with this point.

Yes - a general / evil overlord would keep bodyguards with him.  The difference here might be between 'every soldier who can hold a gun' and 'a basic retinue because we're not expecting any real threat'

They don't call the army in to surround the White House just because a guy with a .22 is heading that way - they'll let general bodyguard deal with it.  OTOH, if a small army with tanks is heading that way, they'll relocate el presidente and send a larger force to deal with the threat.

 

Lets take Sendai from TOB as an example: She sent lieutenants after you one by one (granted, in her case it was to 'bide time' to set up her uber-sendai spell).  If she had seen you stomp all over her spider minions with time-stop and dragon's breath, she might have realised she's not going to beat you on her own and kept, say, her high-priestess and that  beholder etc back to protect her further in the fight (in addition to her drow guards).  On the other hand, if she only thinks you capable of fireball and magic-missile (as an extreme example - just roll with it), she might just think her priestess capable of handling you on her own.  (She would, of course, still set up her spell - she's not a fool)(well, supposedly anyway).

 

So I think it's less about the boss not having ALL their lieutenants and minions with them, and buffed up, at ALL times  'just in case', and more about whether and which minions/lieutenants they'll send where to deal with a given threat.

 

If they know their enemy favours fire attacks, then they'll equip their ring of fire in advance.  If they think they're facing an icy threat, they'll swap it out for their ring of ice (assuming ring-slots are limited and they can't wear all their protection equipment e.g. 2 sets of different full-plate would be out too).  In-battle, they'd have to waste a 'turn' to swap rings if you're suddenly throwing the other effect. 

Spell buffs - in IE games, they'd either be pre-buffed with their full buffs or have a contingency with the most likely spells (stoneskin, invisibility, protection-ring of fire red/blue).  In PoE they'd start by buffing themselves with what they expect you to come at them with first, if they have any intel, or a general buffing if not.

(I realise aluminiumtrioxid wasn't talking about using this in PoE - above is just for example of different game system).

 

I take the point that the system could be 'gamed' (though so can any system) - but try beating Draconis without showing your true power and you just might deserve an easier fight later

 

So yeah, having a boss-fight (and other dungeon sub-boss fights) vary depending on intel gathered by said boss would fall under the heading of verisimilitude.  Having a boss totally unprotected and unprepared for any threats of course would not.

 

Having said all that - I think it would need its own game whose gameplay was centred around tactical scouting and where gaming that system would be the point.  So not for PoE but another tactical rpg could have this as a very interesting game mechanic.

Perhaps one where you control one set of forces and have to scout enemies yourself to protect your stronghold while also trying to breach others' strongholds without tipping your hand.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Yes - a general / evil overlord would keep bodyguards with him. 

 

So I think it's less about the boss not having ALL their lieutenants and minions with them, and buffed up, at ALL times  'just in case', and more about whether and which minions/lieutenants they'll send where to deal with a given threat.

 

I take the point that the system could be 'gamed'

 

..verisimilitude. Having a boss totally unprotected and unprepared for any threats of course would not.

 

Having said all that - I think it would need its own game whose gameplay was centred around tactical scouting and where gaming that system would be the point. 

 

 

These are the relevant points I was trying to get across.

[PrimeJunta]

Having said all that - I think it would need its own game whose gameplay was centred around tactical scouting and where gaming that system would be the point.  So not for PoE but another tactical rpg could have this as a very interesting game mechanic.

Perhaps one where you control one set of forces and have to scout enemies yourself to protect your stronghold while also trying to breach others' strongholds without tipping your hand.

Obsidian has a way of building games around new subsystems they introduce, or making the subsystems integral to what the game is about. One of the core themes of KOTOR 2 was the way you build connections with people around you -- and the major new subsystem it introduced was companion influence. One of FO:NV's main themes was faction balance -- and it introduced a pretty sophisticated faction reputation system. MotB had the Spirit Eater subsystem, which was pretty much the point of the whole game. I think a "strategic intelligence" subsystem would fit rather nicely into this tradition -- and I agree that it would be much more impactful if it was as central to the game in which it lived as party influence was to KOTOR 2 or faction reputation to FO:NV.

 

Thing is, the major new subsystem of this type that Obs is introducing for P:E is ... reputation mechanics. In my opinion this would work very nicely as an extension of that subsystem. Your reputation would be reflected in the way people fight you as well as the way they interact with you in dialog.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Too many quotes, even after heavy pruning. Have to post it in two parts. Sorry.

 

Part 1

 

 

 

Yes - a general / evil overlord would keep bodyguards with him. 

 

So I think it's less about the boss not having ALL their lieutenants and minions with them, and buffed up, at ALL times  'just in case', and more about whether and which minions/lieutenants they'll send where to deal with a given threat.

 

I take the point that the system could be 'gamed'

 

..verisimilitude. Having a boss totally unprotected and unprepared for any threats of course would not.

 

Having said all that - I think it would need its own game whose gameplay was centred around tactical scouting and where gaming that system would be the point. 

 

 

These are the relevant points I was trying to get across.

 

 

Strangely enough, the point(s) you did end up communicating, however, were that "whenever a boss isn't running around fully buffed and with a full party, he is behaving like an idiot". (Also, that I am a bad, bad person, which, considering your earlier complaints about arguing people instead of points, sounds fairly ridiculous.)

 

Also, "being totally unprotected" is a fairly ridiculous term to use when talking about a person who is a formidable warrior/magic-user with a full list of spells waiting to be unleashed. I mean, yes, you could probably make a boss out of "guy who is totally incompetent in a fight when alone", and in that case, yes, it would be fairly ridiculous if that guy wouldn't run around with quite a few bodyguards, no arguments about that.

 

The "needing its own game" thing was also repeatedly brought up by me and is even in my first post about the matter, so again, I don't really understand why this should be considered a valid counterargument, or a point worthy of being brought up at all, assuming that you were reading what I wrote.

 

 

 

I totally mean this in a non-insulting manner but what the hell are you talking about.

 

Ah, the 'x but y' tactic used by people who really mean the opposite to what they say before the 'but'. Your true colours are showing.

 

I don't really think tha question "what the hell are you talking about" can be considered especially insulting, but if it did come across as that, I apologize.

 

 

 

 

Hell yes I don't want to accept the fact that you're not just putting words in my mouth, you are doing your damnedest to cram entire paragraphs down my throat.

 

 

I'm not putting words in your mouth when I quote your words. You want a boss to be unbuffed and not have his lieutenants or minions with him if you, in your words deceive the game, and in my words exploit the game.

 

You're actually the very definition of the internet caricature of people trying to win debates on the internet and staying up all night/morning.

 

Must win debate against internet person at 1.00am because... ??? 

 

I'd like you to actually quote where I have said that I want a boss to be unbuffed and not have his minions and lieutenants with him, and then refer to quoting my words, please.

 

Something something arguing the person something something.

 

...it's summer, nights are hot, making it impossible to sleep, and I don't have a better idea of what to do with myself aside from surfing teh interwebz? But even with that, maybe I should be allowed to not like having to repeat myself completely unnecessarily. (How is this relevant, by the way?)

 

 

 

 

So, verisimilitude is not a good enough reason for you. Good to know.

 

Surprising as it may sound, buffs are generally not things you put up in the morning and then forget about. They come with time limits. An opponent who repeatedly uses scrying to no effect and has his spies reporting to him that they see no enemy around will not put up buffs for no reason when there are no enemies around, because they would expire and then his spell slots would be wasted - possibly hours before an actual attack commences.

 

Keeping your lieutenants near you at all time, when you see no enemy approaching at all also seems counterintuitive, when they could both be spending their time usefully (say, training the troops on the courtyard, for example, just so you can easily reach them when they are needed) and not be underfoot while you are doing your best to entertain guests or do sensitive experiments or any other thing where having 6 feet tall guys in a plate mail around would not be helpful at all.

 

I will repeat myself for the nth time, again: when the opponent has his spies reporting your activity to him, he would of course do something to deal with the problem you pose. This "doing something", however, would entail less severe countermeasures if he sees you as less of a threat. (Say, he sends a lieutenant towards you alongside a few minions if you've showed yourself to be a threat that can be dealt with by that, or call all the lieutenants and minions to him if you're calling down a small-sized magical apocalypse on his garden.)

 

Have you tried looking at NPCs from a standpoint where they are more than a statblock running around, waiting to be slaughtered?

 

 

Verisimilitude is not having a boss send away his minions and lieutenants and be unbuffed to face a party of 6 adventurers on his own.

 

Also, if you're citing verisimilitude then Generals in the military don't have lieutenants and minions with him? Seems like a stupid thing for an army to do to have a General be all alone and not having any protection to protect one of the most important people in their army. Yep, if I go to a military base that's sending out spies to look for people that pose a threat to that base and the general in question, the general will think it's quite all right to be alone with no lieutenants or minions around him. 

 

Have you tried looking at NPCs from a standpoint where they are more intelligent than just plain dumb?

 

I sense a fundamental unwillingness in you to actually react to things I wrote. I have just given you a fairly good reason why people who see no enemies around at all should not want to put up buff spells unnecessarily (bolded it for you now).

 

Also, not really, I'm fairly sure that generals don't have a full cadre of lieutenants and minions with them when they are, say, at home, or at a meeting with Important People, or doing anything where having a full cadre of bodyguards and lieutenants would be fairly impractical (say, in a lab, experimenting - let's assume that our general also happens to be a mage who is interested in research, I'm sure that you can think of other examples where cramming people into a small space is not that beneficial).

 

The critical point you seem to miss (yet again) is that these only apply when no spies or scrying show your presence (bolded it for you now).

 

 

 

So you didn't comment on boss fights without minions and lieutenants because you were able to deceive the game

 

I did just that in the previous paragraph. I didn't especially feel a need to repeat myself in another, completely different paragraph where you are talking about small-scale enemy behavior and tactics, like, say, whether the usage of certain spells should prompt the boss to only use low-level spells against you. (Answer is still nope, by the way.)

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Part 2

 

 

Adaptive A.I. is easily exploitable in games like this. It would be even more exploitable in my 'solo example' above. You can make the game easier by exploiting the A.I. That is not good game design. And rewarding players for exploits truly baffles me. There's nothing strategic about exploits.

 

And for the nth time, you are now changing what you said. This is what you said, "he doesn't have all his important minions and lieutenants with him and didn't put up buffs that provide protection against your favorite attacks". Now you're saying, "the boss will still be prepared, have his lieutenants and minions..."

 

Backtracking and changing what you said isn't helping your argument.

 

Again, the point I have repeatedly made but you seem to be unable or unwilling to engage with is that "if you make both 'deceiving' the AI and 'playing the game straight' come with certain boons and downsides, the decision to favor one over the another has strategic relevance". You can't 'deceive' the game without making the fights leading up to the boss fight harder for you. This is not exploiting the AI, this is trading difficulty in one area to make it easier for you in another. It even has more downsides than "do a sidequest to weaken the boss before the fight", for chrissakes. (Due to not granting extra XP while having an increased difficulty.)

 

As for the thing you have quoted, I will bold the crucial parts which you seem to have a trouble understanding.

 

"he doesn't have all his important minions and lieutenants with him and didn't put up buffs that provide protection against your favorite attacks"

 

This neither implies that he shall have no minions at all, nor that he should have no generic buffs that provide more widespread bonii than "protection against damage/status effect type X". Misunderstandings like this are the very reason I strongly suspect that you were never engaging with the things I wrote beyond a superficial level. (Which is not a values judgment.)

 

 

 

I totally mean this in a non-insulting manner but, what we have here is you are a hypocrite, likes to preach to others about don't attack the person, attack the points and when you engage in debate, you do the opposite by attacking the person and continue to attack the person. 

 

 

Please do point out where I seem to have done that.

 

As I have explained in the previous paragraph, you have provided me with factual evidence that you were actually not paying attention to / did not understand / refused to engage with what I wrote. Statement of facts in values-neutral terms could hardly be considered as a form of engaging in personal attacks.

 

Also, even when I have pointed out (again, in mostly values-neutral terms) that you seem to be interested more in winning the argument than engaging with my points, I always have provided you with an adequate reaction to all the other points you have raised (a courtesy that you did not reciprocate, by the way). I think this is pretty much the definition of arguing the points, not the person. Yet for all this, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time and number of sentences on trying to prove that I am a hypocrite who engages in personal attacks, and has his arguments riddled with all sorts of logical fallacies, which assertions are not only patently untrue, but also seem to have no textual support whatsoever.

 

It is kind of tiring to answer to your unfounded accusations of the trifecta of "logical fallacies, arguing in bad faith, and engaging in personal attacks instead of dismantling the arguments", especially in light of the fact that in the interest of keeping the focus of the discussion on the actual points being discussed, I am refraining from pointing out the very real fallacies in your arguments.

 

 

Well it's really simple. Comparing TV shows, movies, comics to crpg is like comparing apples to oranges.

 

Which, while arguable in itself, furthermore has no bearing at all on the original question of whether the concept of feigning weakness in order to gain the upper hand in a fight has metafictional resonance (aka "is something a guy who plays RPGs to experience similar stories as those in his preferred forms of fictional entertainment should expect to have his character be able to do"), or is a purely gamist construct like passing buffs around.

 

Again, I'm being as values-neutral as possible, but you seem to have forgotten what we were talking about in the first place.

 

 

One thing is hilarious is that you think crpgs are capable of doing the same things as in real life.

 

Oh, you're one of the promancers are you not?

 

This is not what I have said at all. Please do not put words in my mouth. (And do try to answer to the question I actually have asked.)

 

Actually, I am not, and see no way how this could be relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Valorian]

Sweetykitty! I'm disappointed. 

I let you have the whole stage just for yourself, hoping you'll stop throwing diarrheal temper tantrums... Unfortunately, every time someone expresses doubts about your unique espionage RPG project, you experience a succession of meltdowns:

 

***

 

It is with great sadness that I inform our dear readers that, after spending several days angrily stomping its feet, sweetykitty destroyed the stage and collapsed together with it. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Nice try to drag the conversation away from actual arguments back into your home turf of flinging **** at each other, Val. Anything but successful, but still, I can offer points for trying. *pat pat*

Edited May 25, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Valorian]

It's all in your head, sweetykitty, you have to defy the voices. 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Too many quotes, even after heavy pruning. Have to post it in two parts. Sorry.

 

Part 1

 

Strangely enough, the point(s) you did end up communicating, however, were that "whenever a boss isn't running around fully buffed and with a full party, he is behaving like an idiot". (Also, that I am a bad, bad person, which, considering your earlier complaints about arguing people instead of points, sounds fairly ridiculous.)

 

Also, "being totally unprotected" is a fairly ridiculous term to use when talking about a person who is a formidable warrior/magic-user with a full list of spells waiting to be unleashed. I mean, yes, you could probably make a boss out of "guy who is totally incompetent in a fight when alone", and in that case, yes, it would be fairly ridiculous if that guy wouldn't run around with quite a few bodyguards, no arguments about that.

 

The "needing its own game" thing was also repeatedly brought up by me and is even in my first post about the matter, so again, I don't really understand why this should be considered a valid counterargument, or a point worthy of being brought up at all, assuming that you were reading what I wrote.

 

 

No need to be sorry. Also I'm just showing your hypocrisy. If you're going to preach and tell others to attack points and not the person, then people like me will call you out when you resort to insults like you have in this thread, which you've done many times and not just to me.

 

The fact is the boss isn't as protected as he would be with all his lieutenants and minions. And you wanted this very outcome. To deceive the game into thinking you're not a threat, which boils down to gaming and exploiting the system. And you're ignoring your post where you said, "only this time he doesn't have all his important minions and lieutenants with him and didn't put up buffs that provide protection against your favorite attacks".

 

And it's always come down to this. Exploiting the game to have the boss encounter easier than what it should be. Great for solo players.

 

 

 

I don't really think tha question "what the hell are you talking about" can be considered especially insulting, but if it did come across as that, I apologize. 

 

Okay. So you would say that to people in real life in social cirlces. Aunts, uncles, parents, teachers, total strangers, friends, etc. Instead of asking what are they talking about, you would say what the hell are you talking about. For some reason I very much doubt you would say that in real life and then turn around and say "I don't really think tha question "what the hell are you talking about" can be considered especially insulting". Great manners and decorum you have there.

 

 

I'd like you to actually quote where I have said that I want a boss to be unbuffed and not have his minions and lieutenants with him, and then refer to quoting my words, please.

 

Something something arguing the person something something.

 

...it's summer, nights are hot, making it impossible to sleep, and I don't have a better idea of what to do with myself aside from surfing teh interwebz? But even with that, maybe I should be allowed to not like having to repeat myself completely unnecessarily. (How is this relevant, by the way?)

 

Here's the quote for you. "It's more like you fight the same powerful boss, only this time he doesn't have all his important minions and lieutenants with him and didn't put up buffs that provide protection against your favorite attacks".

 

Bold emphasis. Exploit the game by using low level spells and abilities and then just prior to the encounter, change those spells to more powerful spells so he's not prepared and unbuffed for it. Those weren't your favourite spells and abilities that you were using beforehand. You were only using them so he wouldn't use buffs on spells which are your favourite spells and abilities. That's an outright exploit and gaming the system. And you are all for that.

 

 

 

I sense a fundamental unwillingness in you to actually react to things I wrote. I have just given you a fairly good reason why people who see no enemies around at all should not want to put up buff spells unnecessarily (bolded it for you now).

 

Also, not really, I'm fairly sure that generals don't have a full cadre of lieutenants and minions with them when they are, say, at home, or at a meeting with Important People, or doing anything where having a full cadre of bodyguards and lieutenants would be fairly impractical (say, in a lab, experimenting - let's assume that our general also happens to be a mage who is interested in research, I'm sure that you can think of other examples where cramming people into a small space is not that beneficial).

 

The critical point you seem to miss (yet again) is that these only apply when no spies or scrying show your presence (bolded it for you now).

 

 

I sense an unwillingness to accept these logical reasons I've given to you. I've give you logical reasons why a boss would be prepared for an attack by a party of adventurers.

 

The fact is in a lot of crpg's, the stronghold is also the home of the boss. The stronghold does have minions and lieutenants. Nice try though to use real life and say Generals are at home. Yeah, this is a crpg, not real life. And it shows verisimilitude is clouding your judgement on this issue.

 

And the critical point you're missing is that when a party of adventurers is wreaking havoc on the enemies plans, they would be prepared to deal with those adventurers. They wouldn't be letting down their defences because they can't find them.

 

 

I did just that in the previous paragraph. I didn't especially feel a need to repeat myself in another, completely different paragraph where you are talking about small-scale enemy behavior and tactics, like, say, whether the usage of certain spells should prompt the boss to only use low-level spells against you. (Answer is still nope, by the way.)

 

However, the boss without minions, all his important lieutenants and no buffs to your favourite spells would provide an easier encounter. And if he has no buffs and you're attacking him in the first couple of rounds unprepared, he'll be using spells (and likely healing spells and potions) in a different order compared to an encounter with all his minions, lieutenants and being buffed. That order will no doubt be different with a full complement of minions and lieutenants. Using a healing spell or potion in a round that he wouldn't normally use because he isn't buffed has turned the boss into a defensive position. And it's safe to say if you're pounding on him in the first couple of rounds, that will trigger him using a healing potion or spell. Nice exploit there.

 

 

Part 2

 

Again, the point I have repeatedly made but you seem to be unable or unwilling to engage with is that "if you make both 'deceiving' the AI and 'playing the game straight' come with certain boons and downsides, the decision to favor one over the another has strategic relevance". You can't 'deceive' the game without making the fights leading up to the boss fight harder for you. This is not exploiting the AI, this is trading difficulty in one area to make it easier for you in another. It even has more downsides than "do a sidequest to weaken the boss before the fight", for chrissakes. (Due to not granting extra XP while having an increased difficulty.)

 

As for the thing you have quoted, I will bold the crucial parts which you seem to have a trouble understanding.

 

"he doesn't have all his important minions and lieutenants with him and didn't put up buffs that provide protection against your favorite attacks"

 

This neither implies that he shall have no minions at all, nor that he should have no generic buffs that provide more widespread bonii than "protection against damage/status effect type X". Misunderstandings like this are the very reason I strongly suspect that you were never engaging with the things I wrote beyond a superficial level. (Which is not a values judgment.)

 

 

Again changing exploit into strategy. You call it strategy and I call it exploit. It's an exploit to game the system by using abilities and spells you normally wouldn't use because you know you can go back to your favourite abilities and spells later for the boss encounter and have an easier time to overcome it. Exploiting the game by any other name is still exploiting the game.

 

Also, I've already addressed your quote. The boss isn't as protected as he would be if he had his minions, all his lieutenants and was also buffed. Not a good system if you can exploit it so easily. As I said in a previous quote, this would be great for solo players because you've made it easier for them. And you are all for scaling down boss encounters through what you call strategy. It's an exploit.

 

Also, if you're going to use made up words like bonii, then it's easy for people to misunderstand you. I'm guessing English isn't your first language? Perhaps you should again practice what you preach and the message to take away for you is "work on your English".

 

 

Please do point out where I seem to have done that.

 

As I have explained in the previous paragraph, you have provided me with factual evidence that you were actually not paying attention to / did not understand / refused to engage with what I wrote. Statement of facts in values-neutral terms could hardly be considered as a form of engaging in personal attacks.

 

Also, even when I have pointed out (again, in mostly values-neutral terms) that you seem to be interested more in winning the argument than engaging with my points, I always have provided you with an adequate reaction to all the other points you have raised (a courtesy that you did not reciprocate, by the way). I think this is pretty much the definition of arguing the points, not the person. Yet for all this, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time and number of sentences on trying to prove that I am a hypocrite who engages in personal attacks, and has his arguments riddled with all sorts of logical fallacies, which assertions are not only patently untrue, but also seem to have no textual support whatsoever.

 

It is kind of tiring to answer to your unfounded accusations of the trifecta of "logical fallacies, arguing in bad faith, and engaging in personal attacks instead of dismantling the arguments", especially in light of the fact that in the interest of keeping the focus of the discussion on the actual points being discussed, I am refraining from pointing out the very real fallacies in your arguments.

 

If you want me to point out examples of personal attacks by you, then here's a few: one, two, three, oh and there's one at me, and they were just some I found in about 10 or so seconds. So don't try and deny that you haven't been throwing personal attacks at people. As you said, Could we please try arguing the points, not the people who made them for a change? But that didn't stop you from throwing mud at people later in the thread. So yes, you are a hypocrite. The facts speak for themselves.

 

Also, I'm not the one who's staying up at 1.00am in the morning to try and win an internet debate. You're the one showing us who really is trying to win an internet debate by staying up all night and morning and then whining about staying up so late. What's even more funny is not happy with making one quote, you had to break it up into two parts to get every last word in.

 

Oh and you're trying to refrain from pointing out the fallacies in my arguments.

 

 

Which, while arguable in itself, furthermore has no bearing at all on the original question of whether the concept of feigning weakness in order to gain the upper hand in a fight has metafictional resonance (aka "is something a guy who plays RPGs to experience similar stories as those in his preferred forms of fictional entertainment should expect to have his character be able to do"), or is a purely gamist construct like passing buffs around.

 

Again, I'm being as values-neutral as possible, but you seem to have forgotten what we were talking about in the first place.

 

So why bring up TV shows, comics and all sorts of material in a crpg discussion if those things cannot be implemented in a satisfactory way. Just because something is shown in a movie doesn't mean you can do or even translate it in a crpg. This is what I'm talking about with you moving the goal posts and getting lost in verisimilitude. You're so lost in it that you forget what the discussion is all about and point to things like the Silmarillion. Just because it's written in a book doesn't mean it can work in a crpg.

 

 

 

This is not what I have said at all. Please do not put words in my mouth. (And do try to answer to the question I actually have asked.)

 

Actually, I am not, and see no way how this could be relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

So you bring up something, I then answer, you accuse me of putting words in your mouth and then decide all of a sudden it's not relevant to the discussion. Then why bring it up in the first place if it has no relevance to begin with? Stop with moving the goal posts and you won't have to drag this out for pages.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II