Lessons from recent IE playthroughs

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Part 1

 

Things that are not exactly relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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 them throwing mud at people later in the thread. So yes, you are a hypocrite. The facts speak for themselves.

 

 

As for one, two and three: it is kind of hard to argue points and not people when the other guy has no points to make at all (but spews personal attacks with the speed of a machine gun).

 

As for number four, you still have not provided me with a concrete example of what in the quoted post could possibly be construed as a personal attack. You either get to hold others to standards like "'Arguing over the semantics and jumping to conclusions? Not helpful.' is 'deflecting and constitutes as accusatory accusation' [sic]" and "use of 'what the hell are you talking about?' is rude", in which case I would kind of expect some sort of apology for your equally rude "you don't know what you are talking about with your rambling" comment that has sparked my not exactly polite reactions, or you can accept that while both the action and the reaction was fairly impolite, it didn't really cross into personal attacks territory.

 

Having a preference for arguing points, not people does not mean I have to sit idly while others are happily throwing abuse at me.

 

 

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".

 

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

 

It's an "unofficial plural of 'bonus'" as far as I am aware (read: google said so), but indeed English is not my first language. Is using a plural form that is not official yet widely understood supposed to discredit me somehow?

 

I'm not "trying to", I am. Your vehement arguments against changing enemy tactical behavior which was not advocated by me in any way is a textbook example of strawman argument ("simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position"), and your subsequent "but it doesn't matter because you were advocating for changing the composition of the encounter!" reaction when I pointed this out is pretty much the definition of goalpost moving ("demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to concede or accept the opponent’s argument"), which you are so fond of accusing me with - and these are just examples off the top of my head. I did not openly call you out on either so far.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

(...) 

 

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 ieutenants 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.

 

Ok, now I am starting to feel that there is a fundamental confusion around the meaning of the verb "exploit". Since - as we have already established - I am merely an ignorant foreigner, I will call upon the Oxford Dictionary webpage on the issue.

 

(*tries to copypaste quote, fails miserably at formatting, decides to just copy the relevant parts*)

 

1. "Make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)". In this sense, every possible tactic is exploiting something. Not very helpful, but undoubtedly supports my point.

 

2. "Make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand". As I have already stated, I strongly believe that if there are costs and benefits associated with both engaging in deceit and not doing so, and these are appropriately balanced against each other, the benefits of using one over the other could hardly be considered unfair.

 

So, "exploit"... 

 

 

(And you can of course anwer all of this with "but this is weakening the boss and that is horrible" or something to that effect, but the only way I can react to that is "so what?". As long as the overall difficulty of the quest - taking all encounters into account, not just the final confrontation with the boss - is more or less the same, I do not believe that a somewhat easier boss battle would break the game.)

 

 

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.

 

Your senses seem to be failing you, because I have acknowledged that certain enemies should be always prepared for an attack by a party of adventurers. Repeatedly. Now it is your turn to accept what I have said. Oh wait...

 

 

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.

 

You seem to be in full agreement with this statement, which is basically a rephrased version of what I have said earlier. 

 

 

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.

 

Which doesn't make the other three examples I brought up where having a large number of armed and armored men around would be counter-productive (entertaining guests/negotiating with allies, experimenting in a lab with sensitive equipment, doing anything in a narrow space) any less valid. Way I see it, score's still 3:1.

 

 

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.

 

Which, as we have established, would only occur if he'd have no idea that you are lurking around. Yes, attacking someone while they are unprepared (and ideally while they are sleeping) tends to kill them pretty reliably. This is the point of sending a small squad into the heart of the enemy stronghold to assassinate their leader.

 

If it makes you sleep any easier, I can include a clause that the aforementioned uber-paranoid bosses you seem to be so fond of would be exempt from this. Happy?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Part 2

 

 

 

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.

 

Just to reiterate: you were arguing that feigning weakness is the same as pre-buffing your party. I have retorted by saying that it is not really the same because a/ feigning weakness in this system would come with an associated opportunity cost, while pre-buffing costs nothing aside from the time of the player, and b/ it is a well-established trope used in all kinds of stories, while pre-buffing is purely an emergent feature of the game rules with no metafictional resonance. You have asked me to provide you with suitable examples in fiction.

I have provided said examples, to which you reacted by starting a completely different argument about how it is not possible to translate fiction to a crpg and accusing me of goalpost moving, again. Not only has this has no bearing on the question of "is feigning weakness the same as pre-buffing?", but it's also another textbook example of goalpost moving, the same thing, ironically, that you were accusing me of in the same breath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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?

 

 

I may be an ignorant foreigner with a very limited grasp of the English language, but even I am able to tell the difference between "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" and "crpgs are capable of doing the same things as in real life". I'm not accusing you of putting words in my mouth, I am pointing out the fact that you are putting words in my mouth.

 

Also, basic reading comprehension, something which the breaking of your text into two paragraphs was intended to facilitate: the "Actually, I am not, and see no way how this could be relevant to the discussion at hand." sentence was intended to be the answer to your assumption of "Oh, you're one of the promancers are you not? I bet you think romances in crpgs are just like real life." You may have noticed that while this indeed has no relevance, I wasn't the one who brought it up.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Part 1

 

Things that are not exactly relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

As for one, two and three: it is kind of hard to argue points and not people when the other guy has no points to make at all (but spews personal attacks with the speed of a machine gun).

 

As for number four, you still have not provided me with a concrete example of what in the quoted post could possibly be construed as a personal attack. You either get to hold others to standards like "'Arguing over the semantics and jumping to conclusions? Not helpful.' is 'deflecting and constitutes as accusatory accusation' [sic]" and "use of 'what the hell are you talking about?' is rude", in which case I would kind of expect some sort of apology for your equally rude "you don't know what you are talking about with your rambling" comment that has sparked my not exactly polite reactions, or you can accept that while both the action and the reaction was fairly impolite, it didn't really cross into personal attacks territory.

 

Having a preference for arguing points, not people does not mean I have to sit idly while others are happily throwing abuse at me.

 

 

It's funny that you admit this is not really relevant to the discussion and yet feel compelled to give a retort. And if according to you, the other person has no points then that's okay to make personal attacks? After you telling others not to attack person but the point. Here's a tip, if the person doesn't have a point, ignore them. But it seems you want to win an internet debate, even resorting to personal insults just to get the last word in.

 

 

It's an "unofficial plural of 'bonus'" as far as I am aware (read: google said so), but indeed English is not my first language. Is using a plural form that is not official yet widely understood supposed to discredit me somehow?

 

I'm not "trying to", I am. Your vehement arguments against changing enemy tactical behavior which was not advocated by me in any way is a textbook example of strawman argument ("simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position"), and your subsequent "but it doesn't matter because you were advocating for changing the composition of the encounter!" reaction when I pointed this out is pretty much the definition of goalpost moving ("demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to concede or accept the opponent’s argument"), which you are so fond of accusing me with - and these are just examples off the top of my head. I did not openly call you out on either so far.

 

 

 

An unofficial plural of bonus? LMAO. And where did you get this from? Not from any official dictionary. Just keep using those made up words. Or how about using actual real words?  And was it not you that used the is English not your first language tactic and go away and try and learn it first to me? What was the point of that? To discredit me? You're willing to throw this at me and when I throw it back at you, you get defensive.

 

And you are advocating scaling down the boss encounters. I have quoted you multiple times. This can not be denied and it's not a strawman tactic. Perhaps looking up strawman tactic because:

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, now I am starting to feel that there is a fundamental confusion around the meaning of the verb "exploit". Since - as we have already established - I am merely an ignorant foreigner, I will call upon the Oxford Dictionary webpage on the issue.

 

(*tries to copypaste quote, fails miserably at formatting, decides to just copy the relevant parts*)

 

1. "Make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)". In this sense, every possible tactic is exploiting something. Not very helpful, but undoubtedly supports my point.

 

2. "Make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand". As I have already stated, I strongly believe that if there are costs and benefits associated with both engaging in deceit and not doing so, and these are appropriately balanced against each other, the benefits of using one over the other could hardly be considered unfair.

 

So, "exploit"... 

 

(And you can of course anwer all of this with "but this is weakening the boss and that is horrible" or something to that effect, but the only way I can react to that is "so what?". As long as the overall difficulty of the quest - taking all encounters into account, not just the final confrontation with the boss - is more or less the same, I do not believe that a somewhat easier boss battle would break the game.)

 

 

If we're going to use definitions, wouldn't it be better to keep it in context? Instead of selective quoting of definitions? Here's a definition for you:

 

Collins English Dictionary:

 

1. To take advantage of (person, situation, etc)... for one's own ends.

 

You are taking advantage of the games mechanics in a manner not intended by the games developers. When you're exploiting the game to scale down a boss encounter through spells and abilities you would normally not use, knowingly to have the encounter scaled down for your own ends, that is exploiting the game. Because you would normally not use those spells and abilities. You're only doing it to get an easier boss encounter.

 

So yeah, I do know what the word means. It seems you don't.

 

 

 

Your senses seem to be failing you, because I have acknowledged that certain enemies should be always prepared for an attack by a party of adventurers. Repeatedly. Now it is your turn to accept what I have said. Oh wait...

 

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.

 

You seem to be in full agreement with this statement, which is basically a rephrased version of what I have said earlier. 

 

No, you want a scaled down encounter due to strategy which I call exploiting.

 

And it's not a rephrased version of what you said. So stop lying. The boss in a crpg wouldn't be relocated. You never said that. And Silent Winter said the General would keep bodyguards with him. You said you wanted a scaled down encounter with not all the lieutenants and minions. Totally different.

 

Also, I recall selecting the relevant points from Silent Winter's post and highlighting them. But you seem to not quote that at all, probably because it's easier to quote Silent Winter's quote than what I quoted, presumably to give weight to your own argument. tsk tsk.

 

 

 

Which doesn't make the other three examples I brought up where having a large number of armed and armored men around would be counter-productive (entertaining guests/negotiating with allies, experimenting in a lab with sensitive equipment, doing anything in a narrow space) any less valid. Way I see it, score's still 3:1.

 

So you want me to refute your other examples? And you're keeping score? ROFLMAO. How petty are you? I can refute them if you wish. I just didn't see the need to waste time on your other shoddy examples. Refuting one was enough. Also, just because I didn't refute your other examples doesn't mean they're valid. It's just that they were so stupid, I didn't acknowledge them.

 

 

 

Which, as we have established, would only occur if he'd have no idea that you are lurking around. Yes, attacking someone while they are unprepared (and ideally while they are sleeping) tends to kill them pretty reliably. This is the point of sending a small squad into the heart of the enemy stronghold to assassinate their leader.

 

If it makes you sleep any easier, I can include a clause that the aforementioned uber-paranoid bosses you seem to be so fond of would be exempt from this. Happy?

 

And as I said earlier and established for you, the enemy would most likely be on high alert to find you because you're causing havoc to their operations. And you continue to move the goal posts with the enemy now sleeping? Nice shifting of the goal posts there. But you want to discount all I've said and scale down encounters through exploits.

 

 

Part 2

 

Just to reiterate: you were arguing that feigning weakness is the same as pre-buffing your party. I have retorted by saying that it is not really the same because a/ feigning weakness in this system would come with an associated opportunity cost, while pre-buffing costs nothing aside from the time of the player, and b/ it is a well-established trope used in all kinds of stories, while pre-buffing is purely an emergent feature of the game rules with no metafictional resonance. You have asked me to provide you with suitable examples in fiction.

I have provided said examples, to which you reacted by starting a completely different argument about how it is not possible to translate fiction to a crpg and accusing me of goalpost moving, again. Not only has this has no bearing on the question of "is feigning weakness the same as pre-buffing?", but it's also another textbook example of goalpost moving, the same thing, ironically, that you were accusing me of in the same breath.

 

 

For someone who accuses others of strawmen tactics and putting words in other people mouths, you've just done a stellar job here. How about actually quoting what I said? I said, "So in effect, you're pre-buffing your own party. That's what it boils down to". The effect of debuffing the enemy before you even enter the encounter has made you a more powerful party. So in effect, you have buffed your party. You've changed the encounter (made your party stronger against a now weaker boss encounter) prior to entering the encounter. So in effect you have pre-buffed your party by making it stronger.

 

 

I may be an ignorant foreigner with a very limited grasp of the English language, but even I am able to tell the difference between "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" and "crpgs are capable of doing the same things as in real life". I'm not accusing you of putting words in my mouth, I am pointing out the fact that you are putting words in my mouth.

 

Also, basic reading comprehension, something which the breaking of your text into two paragraphs was intended to facilitate: the "Actually, I am not, and see no way how this could be relevant to the discussion at hand." sentence was intended to be the answer to your assumption of "Oh, you're one of the promancers are you not? I bet you think romances in crpgs are just like real life." You may have noticed that while this indeed has no relevance, I wasn't the one who brought it up.

 

And I'm saying crpgs may be able to do some things in real life but just because it's okay in real life doesn't mean it translates well to crpgs. And this system your proposing is so full of exploits, that you don't even see it. It truly baffles me.

 

Also, it hasn't stopped you from bringing in various points that has no relevance to the discussion. I was answering your illogical post with an example of mine.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

As for one, two and three: it is kind of hard to argue points and not people when the other guy has no points to make at all (but spews personal attacks with the speed of a machine gun).

 

 

It's funny that you admit this is not really relevant to the discussion and yet feel compelled to give a retort. And if according to you, the other person has no points then that's okay to make personal attacks?

 

Answer to what I've actually written, not selective quotes. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

An unofficial plural of bonus? LMAO.   And where did you get this from? Not from any official dictionary.

 

And was it not you that used the is English not your first language tactic and go away and try and learn it first to me? What was the point of that? 

 

 

There. The fact that it a word is not included in official dictionaries doesn't mean that it does not see usage among people (see also: d***swizzle.)

 

I was offering it as a possible explanation for you seemingly not understanding how "you do not know what you are talking about with your rambling" can be interpreted as rude and inflammatory. Read what I've written. Thank you.

 

 

And you are advocating scaling down the boss encounters. I have quoted you multiple times. This can not be denied and it's not a strawman tactic. 

 

Yes. I was, however, never advocating for reducing the spell level enemies use in a fight depending on what you have used so far. Read what you've written back then. Thank you.

 

 

 

If we're going to use definitions, wouldn't it be better to keep it in context? Instead of selective quoting of definitions? Here's a definition for you:

 

Collins English Dictionary:

 

1. To take advantage of (person, situation, etc)... for one's own ends.

 

You are taking advantage of the games mechanics in a manner not intended by the games developers. When you're exploiting the game to scale down a boss encounter through spells and abilities you would normally not use, knowingly to have the encounter scaled down for your own ends, that is exploiting the game. Because you would normally not use those spells and abilities. You're only doing it to get an easier boss encounter.

 

When you can point out what parts of the definition I did not quote from the page I was directly linking to, you get to accuse me of selective quoting of definitions. Not until then.

 

By the way, the definition you have written is "To take advantage of (person, situation, etc)... for one's own ends." Not "to take advantage of (sg) in a way that was not intended". Read your own definitions. Thank you.

 

(I'm not going to open a different argument about the definition of "taking advantage".)

 

 

No, you want a scaled down encounter due to strategy which I call exploiting.

 

And it's not a rephrased version of what you said. So stop lying. The boss in a crpg wouldn't be relocated. You never said that. And Silent Winter said the General would keep bodyguards with him. You said you wanted a scaled down encounter with not all the lieutenants and minions. Totally different.

 

Yes, it wouldn't. Your party also does not count as "a small army with tanks." Read the post I've quoted. Thank you.

 

Also, I do not really see the difference between "the general would keep bodyguards with him", when said group of bodyguards would constitute of "a basic retinue because we're not expecting any real threat" and "the general would not have all the lieutenants and minions with him".

 

As an aside, I really appreciate you consistently not taking the effort to even read the things I'm writing and linking, yet accusing me of lying based on information you missed when you did not read those things. It's really classy.

 

 

So you want me to refute your other examples? And you're keeping score? ROFLMAO. How petty are you? I can refute them if you wish. 

 

Yes, please do explain to me how having lots of armed and armored people around in a small space with lots of important, yet extremely fragile things lying around (aka: a typical lab) is not inviting disaster. Or how much it helps to have huge threatening figures watch your guests' every move instill a feeling of comfort. I'm all ears.

 

 

And as I said earlier and established for you, the enemy would most likely be on high alert to find you because you're causing havoc to their operations. 

 

Which is, again, a circumstance I have never included in any of my examples, but thanks for reading my posts so carefully.

 

 

For someone who accuses others of strawmen tactics and putting words in other people mouths, you've just done a stellar job here. How about actually quoting what I said? I said, "So in effect, you're pre-buffing your own party. That's what it boils down to". The effect of debuffing the enemy before you even enter the encounter has made you a more powerful party. 

 

Except for the fact that you have achieved this not through spending five minutes clicking around with no real cost or challenge but through spending extra effort on those lead-up encounters in which your hands were tied.

 

Do I have to point out how the two are different? Shouldn't you be rewarded for the extra effort you have put in?

 

 

Also, it hasn't stopped you from bringing in various points that has no relevance to the discussion. I was answering your illogical post with an example of mine.

 

Nice save. Sadly, no sane person would believe it. (Also, scolding my incompetent usage of the English language while writing down stuff like "various points that has no relevance" seems a bit ironic.)

 

 

Edit:

 

Anyways, I'm done wasting my time arguing with a person who quite apparently does not read a single thing my posts contain, and whose arguments are a wild mixture of baseless accusations and various logical fallacies alongside a few valid points sprinkled in once in a while. Enjoy your well-earned Internet Prize of Being Right.

Edited May 25, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Valorian]

 

*100 quotes across 2 pages*

 

 

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 indeed, I also observed this particular psychosis exhibited by sweetykitty. It constantly scans the forum, looking for replies to its briiilliant ideas, then immediately tries to drown the "opponent" in an unimaginable quantity of rotten&radioactive waste (cutely calling it arguments&points) that only few are brave enough to tackle.

 

 

 

I can imagine what would happen if its cellar caught fire.

 

*things crash and burn around sweetykitty while it furiously types a reply to part 95 of a post atomized into 100 quotes*

 

*firefighters come to the rescue and break down the cellar door*

 

Firefighter #1: ... "What is that thing in front of the monitor!?"

 

Firefighter #2: "I don't know, but it seems alive! We should rescue it!"

 

Sweetykitty: *gazing at the monitor* "NO! NO! I'm almost done! I'm on page TWO! LET ME REPLY TO HIIIROOO!"

 

*firefighters quietly back away*

 

 

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

immediately tries to drown the "opponent" in an unimaginable quantity of rotten&radioactive waste

 

*glances at Val's last 10 posts in the thread*

 

...Oookkay...

 

*slowly backs away before the tidal forces of the gigantic black hole in lieau of Val's self-awareness convert him into spaghetti*

[Valorian]

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, I'm done wasting my time arguing 

 

 

 

 self-awareness 

 

 

 

 

Sweetykitty, your brutal assault against reality is indeed spectacular. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, I'm done wasting my time arguing 

 

 

 

 self-awareness 

 

 

 

 

Sweetykitty, your brutal assault against reality is indeed spectacular. 

 

 

 

...Touché.

 

 

There now, I hope this will help to soothe your soul which seems to be in turmoil since the Almighty Forum Consensus has determined that just like your arguments, your trolling is also weaker than mine. *pat pat*

 

(I can find no possible other explanation for your increasingly more desperate tries to provoke me into throwing moar scraps of attention in your general direction.)

Edited May 25, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Valorian]

 

...Touché.

 

 

There now, I hope this will help to soothe your soul which seems to be in turmoil since the Almighty Forum Consensus has determined that just like your arguments, your trolling is also weaker than mine. *pat pat*

 

(I can find no possible other explanation for your increasingly more desperate tries to provoke me into throwing moar temper tantrums in your general direction.)

 

 

It soothes my soul, sweetykitty, to help you free yourself from all the accumulated waste inside your cranium. You're like a fountain!

 

I'm also proud that I've taught you a variety of new expressions that have enriched your vocabulary (seems like remembering is not a forbidden art in sweetykitty-land anymore).  Bravo sweetykitty. 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

 

Answer to what I've actually written, not selective quotes. Thank you.

 

 

I did answer to what you written. You just didn't like what I responded with. And considering it was off topic, you still want me to answer your off topic dribble.

 

 

 

There. The fact that it a word is not included in official dictionaries doesn't mean that it does not see usage among people (see also: d***swizzle.)

 

I was offering it as a possible explanation for you seemingly not understanding how "you do not know what you are talking about with your rambling" can be interpreted as rude and inflammatory. Read what I've written. Thank you.

 

Only the uneducated would use words that are not official like bonii considering there is already an official word for the plural of bonus. Just because people don't know the correct word doesn't lend weight to your argument. The word even looks like a made up word which it is.

 

 

 

Yes. I was, however, never advocating for reducing the spell level enemies use in a fight depending on what you have used so far. Read what you've written back then. Thank you.

 

 

Good to see you admit for scaling down encounters. And as I've shown, scaling down an encounter, not having the boss buffed will trigger spells/potions he would normally not use at a certain time in an encounter, which will make him use spells/potions and put him in a defensive position and not attacking you. He's using spells defensive spells instead of offensive spells. That's also changing his spell selection through exploits.

 

 

 

When you can point out what parts of the definition I did not quote from the page I was directly linking to, you get to accuse me of selective quoting of definitions. Not until then.

 

By the way, the definition you have written is "To take advantage of (person, situation, etc)... for one's own ends." Not "to take advantage of (sg) in a way that was not intended". Read your own definitions. Thank you.

 

(I'm not going to open a different argument about the definition of "taking advantage".)

 

 

You want me to point out what parts in your definition. No, I'll use the Collins English Dictionary. And taking advantage for one's owns ends is using exploits for your own ends and not as intended which includes exploits. You're trying to play semantics and it won't work.

 

 

 

Yes, it wouldn't. Your party also does not count as "a small army with tanks." Read the post I've quoted. Thank you.

 

Also, I do not really see the difference between "the general would keep bodyguards with him", when said group of bodyguards would constitute of "a basic retinue because we're not expecting any real threat" and "the general would not have all the lieutenants and minions with him".

 

As an aside, I really appreciate you consistently not taking the effort to even read the things I'm writing and linking, yet accusing me of lying based on information you missed when you did not read those things. It's really classy.

 

 

So you admit the boss wouldn't be relocated. Good. And your army doesn't count as a small army of tanks? So why quote the post if they don't? Oh that's right to lend weight to your argument.

 

Also, you're changing what you're saying. tsk tsk. You said, "all his important minions and lieutenants." You're taking away some of his important minions and lieutenants. When you take away important enemies, the encounter is scaled down. These are not basic enemies, but are important enemies you would face.

 

I also don't appreciate you consistently not taking the effort to read the things I'm writing and linking. And you are lying based on what you continue to write. Really classy, there. Hyprocrite and lying as well.

 

 

 

Yes, please do explain to me how having lots of armed and armored people around in a small space with lots of important, yet extremely fragile things lying around (aka: a typical lab) is not inviting disaster. Or how much it helps to have huge threatening figures watch your guests' every move instill a feeling of comfort. I'm all ears. 

 

Moving the goal posts again.? LMAO. Enemies in a lab now? Oh dear. And this is why I choose not to refute and acknowledge these stupid points you make.

 

 

 

Which is, again, a circumstance I have never included in any of my examples, but thanks for reading my posts so carefully.

 

And yet, by causing havoc to the enemy, the boss encounter is scaled down because while causing havoc with spells and abilities you normally wouldn't use, you then change your spells and abilities to get a scaled down boss encounter without all his all important minions and lieutenants. Using low level spells/abilities is what has been discussed to deceive the game though. Because I was using spells that he wasn't expecting by exploiting the game. So yes, perhaps reading my posts carefully would help.

 

 

  

 

Do I have to point out how the two are different? Shouldn't you be rewarded for the extra effort you have put in? 

 

Ah, the old do I have to point this out without actually pointing it out tactic. Nice work there.

 

 

 

Nice save. Sadly, no sane person would believe it. (Also, scolding my incompetent usage of the English language while writing down stuff like "various points that has no relevance" seems a bit ironic.)

 

 

Edit:

 

Anyways, I'm done wasting my time arguing with a person who quite apparently does not read a single thing my posts contain, and whose arguments are a wild mixture of baseless accusations and various logical fallacies alongside a few valid points sprinkled in once in a while. Enjoy your well-earned Internet Prize of Being Right.

 

 

Actually it was you who was scolding me first with usage of the English language as I stated previously. And when I throw it back at you with made up words you get all defensive and try to defend those made up words. Seriously, defending made up words?  Made up words by you are worse than a grammatical error with has or have on my part. It really is laughable.

 

Well, you should be directing this last quote all at yourself since you are not only a hypocrite, but you also come with some of the most ludicrous, goal post moving, idiotic fallacies I've ever seen. Enjoy your exploits with your game system. Perhaps some unsuspecting developer will see the merits of your highly exploitive system.

[Zwiebelchen]

This.

[PrimeJunta]

Train wrecks are great entertainment though.

[Infiltrator_SF]

Uh, ok. Here's my take on IE games and what I hope PoE takes and doesn't take from them:

 

 

 

IWD/IWD2: These games were basically completely combat focused from start till end. At no point I felt interested in the story or was driven by anything other than gaining power and killing faster. I am certain PoE will not be the same.

 

BG/BG2: Storywriting was ok, albeit often childish, in the sense that I would engage in comedic events and quests more often than I'd like, though I wouldn't sack this entirely - there needs to be some sort of tension relief. This was the middle ground between story and combat - it also had the biggest setting and freedom.

 

PS:T: Of course, this one focused almost entirely on conversations and had a fantastic story, the combat aspect suffered for it, as it was very straightforward even if you didn't play a fighter character. The character creation was also heavily set in place unless you wanted to skip half of the game content.

 

Basically, I'd want a game with a story like PS:T, combat like IWD and a scope like BG2. But I know it's impossible. PS:T was made around TNO, and I do not expect PoE to molded in such way. I would like it to have a more serious tone than BG2 while having a bigger scope, thanks to the success of the KS campaign.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

IWD/IWD2: These games were basically completely combat focused from start till end. At no point I felt interested in the story or was driven by anything other than gaining power and killing faster. I am certain PoE will not be the same.

 

Basically, I'd want a game with a story like PS:T, combat like IWD and a scope like BG2.

 

Well, yes, this pretty much explains why I could never really get into the IWD games. I mean, there are really cool squad-based RTT games without the completely unnecessary trappings of role-playing out there, why would I seek the same from an RPG?

 

That said, I've never really felt that the combat in IWD 1/2 was significantly better than in BG2-ToB.

[PrimeJunta]

Character and party building mechanics are a lot of fun to play with. You don't get those in RTT's (much).

 

I did enjoy the combat in IWD a good deal more than in BG 1/2. Main reason is that it felt fairer without feeling nerfed -- fewer sucker punches with less save-n-reload -- and the maps were IMO better designed for tactical play.

 

IWD2 had the same good features about the combat, except it was much more monotonous and repetitive, which wore me down about halfway through. Haven't completed that yet, very probably never will.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Character and party building mechanics are a lot of fun to play with. You don't get those in RTT's (much).

 

I did enjoy the combat in IWD a good deal more than in BG 1/2. Main reason is that it felt fairer without feeling nerfed -- fewer sucker punches with less save-n-reload -- and the maps were IMO better designed for tactical play.

 

IWD2 had the same good features about the combat, except it was much more monotonous and repetitive, which wore me down about halfway through. Haven't completed that yet, very probably never will.

 

Well, that is a valid point.

 

Main problem is, I feel, is that pre-4e D&D is a ruleset that is fundamentally more suited to combat-as-war as opposed to the CRPG staple combat-as-sport. On lower levels, it is way too easy to die from an inconvenient critical or as a consequence to a series of unlucky rolls, while higher levels come with a proliferation of tactics based on hard counters.

 

I fully agree with you about IWD2 having so much filler combat that it started to become monotonous and repetitive. Prologue was fairly awesome though, with some great bits of reactivity and quite a few quests that could be solved through other ways than combat.

[PrimeJunta]

Yeah, that.

 

Anecdote -- I killed one of my PC's during the first fifteen minutes of my first-ever AD&D DM'ing session. Unlucky save against poison. This after we had spent most of an entire day lovingly crafting characters. I was about twelve or thirteen, I think. It was not fun and, like most DM's I think, I learned to cheat with the dice where applicable after that.

 

There was a great bit of advice in one of the Star Wars RPG books, I forget which one. It said that PC's have script immunity. Meaning, they can't get killed unless it's dramatically appropriate. I've applied that to all my PnP campaigns since and I think it's worked out well. Some of my PC's have died, but every one of those deaths has been climactic and memorable.

 

I also liked the IWD2 prologue. It was varied and interesting, and perhaps made the ensuing trash-mob-after-trash-mob grind all the more disappointing.

[JFSOCC]

Quick note on the thread drama:

If you feel your arguments aren't getting across, maybe it's time to step away from the discussion and cut your losses. Better than to get into a quagmire that only vaguely resembles debate. It's not worth the effort.

 

But then, sometimes, one wants to have the last word, eh?

 

Back on topic:

I think feigning weakness to get an advantage is possible if the AI triggers are known. If you know that certain mobs target your weaker members, you can use that in your positioning.

[Infiltrator_SF]

 

IWD/IWD2: These games were basically completely combat focused from start till end. At no point I felt interested in the story or was driven by anything other than gaining power and killing faster. I am certain PoE will not be the same.

 

Basically, I'd want a game with a story like PS:T, combat like IWD and a scope like BG2.

 

Well, yes, this pretty much explains why I could never really get into the IWD games. I mean, there are really cool squad-based RTT games without the completely unnecessary trappings of role-playing out there, why would I seek the same from an RPG?

 

That said, I've never really felt that the combat in IWD 1/2 was significantly better than in BG2-ToB.

 

Hmmmm, to me, combat in BG2 wasn't worse mechanically wise, but for someone starting out, it might have been weird because a lot of the areas you fought in were really, really constricted and you had to dance around the bad AI to avoid them, diminishing the gratification.

 

Also, unlike in IWD, where you could make up a party from whatever you wanted, NPCs in BG2 were pre-set as we all know and some of them were truely horrifying when it came to doing something useful.

 

But yea, mechanically there wasn't much difference, and the gap between IWD > BG is much smaller than the one that exists between them and PS:T. Then again, so is the story.

[Lephys]

Do you miss points for a living Lephys?

Hahaha...

 

"What I'm saying is COMPLETELY different from what you're saying. Obviously, you're the one who's missing the point... you know, the one stemming from something you said, to which I'm responding?"

 

You're too much, Stun.

 

Here, lets try this again.

Want a perfect example of this adaptive scouting system? At some point in the game, some faction or another sends assassins after you.

I personally would rather enjoy reading someone's perfect example of an adaptive scouting system, as I believe such a system would make everything it touches, whether it be quests or combat, so much better. But, of course, leave it to YOU to find the ONE example where it wouldn't work at all: Sending assassins against a high profile Land owner HERO. LOL

 

Wow... Way to slice off the introduction to the actual example and use it out-of-context. There is a reason I typed the stuff following that sentence, you know. What am I saying? It's evident that you don't know.

 

A) The process of sending the assassins after you was in literally no way the point of the example. Someone can't intelligently decide who would be best for an assassin job, then just never actually send the assassins after you. Why would it matter how hand-picked they were if they didn't confront you? That's what assassins do. They get sent after people, and then they go after those people. It's called context. Look it up.

 

B) Just because someone's a prominent land-owner doesn't mean they have a GPS tracking beacon on them. NOR does it mean that they're located at their own personal stronghold at all times, forever. NOR does it mean that it's probably the best idea, if you're an assassin, to go after them in the most fortified/staffed, high-security location you possibly can. Thus, your argument remains not only irrelevant (as my example has nothing to do with the process of location, which was simply understood to be something assassins do in order to actually kill their targets), but also utterly nonsensical.

 

You had your shot. It's not hard to be reasonable, yet you defend a simple misunderstanding to your last breath as if I've urinated upon your family's grave by pointing out that you've misunderstood me. Have fun being you. *waves*

[Stun]

 

Do you miss points for a living Lephys?

Hahaha...

 

"What I'm saying is COMPLETELY different from what you're saying. Obviously, you're the one who's missing the point... you know, the one stemming from something you said, to which I'm responding?"

 

You're too much, Stun.

 

Here, lets try this again.

Want a perfect example of this adaptive scouting system? At some point in the game, some faction or another sends assassins after you.

I personally would rather enjoy reading someone's perfect example of an adaptive scouting system, as I believe such a system would make everything it touches, whether it be quests or combat, so much better. But, of course, leave it to YOU to find the ONE example where it wouldn't work at all: Sending assassins against a high profile Land owner HERO. LOL

 

Wow... Way to slice off the introduction to the actual example and use it out-of-context. There is a reason I typed the stuff following that sentence, you know. What am I saying? It's evident that you don't know.

 

A) The process of sending the assassins after you was in literally no way the point of the example. Someone can't intelligently decide who would be best for an assassin job, then just never actually send the assassins after you. Why would it matter how hand-picked they were if they didn't confront you? That's what assassins do. They get sent after people, and then they go after those people. It's called context. Look it up.

 

B) Just because someone's a prominent land-owner doesn't mean they have a GPS tracking beacon on them. NOR does it mean that they're located at their own personal stronghold at all times, forever. NOR does it mean that it's probably the best idea, if you're an assassin, to go after them in the most fortified/staffed, high-security location you possibly can. Thus, your argument remains not only irrelevant (as my example has nothing to do with the process of location, which was simply understood to be something assassins do in order to actually kill their targets), but also utterly nonsensical.

 

You had your shot. It's not hard to be reasonable, yet you defend a simple misunderstanding to your last breath as if I've urinated upon your family's grave by pointing out that you've misunderstood me. Have fun being you. *waves*

 

Here you go Lephys.

 

http://locator.apa.org/

Edited May 28, 2014 by Stun

[aluminiumtrioxid]

...Theeeeeere we go again.

[Gfted1]

Thread closed.