CaptainPatch wrote: Zombra wrote:
CaptainPatch wrote:Jeez. "Minimized" as in "set as low as it can be set to." Obviously not 1s. One 10 and six 3s. (Or whatever combination the current Attribute points allow for.)
3 in a stat is fine. It's "average" for chrissake.
Originally 3 = Poor. Lots of people objected. So they changed the label to "Average". The complaints went away. Amazing how a label change makes everything reasonable.
Turns out a Ranger with straight 4s is perfectly viable. Try it.
Zombra wrote:OK then. How about 10? And make them broken in significantly different ways, since you don't have time to do all 999 million. I bet I can choose one of those 10 parties and beat the bandits at the Radio Tower with them. No Angie.
What would be the points.
The point would be to back up your statement about all these nonviable builds you keep talking about - to put your proverbial money where your mouth is. Let's see some of these bad builds. If I can still kick ass with one of them, your argument will be shown to be not so strong. If I can't, you'll gain credibility. This is a case where we can actually look at numbers and performance and see who's right. If you choose to decline this opportunity, that seems to say something about your confidence in your own arguments.
Why? Because you have been lambasting me, haranguing me, ragging on me about being wrong while you are entirely right. It is NOT about the fact that we obviously have different tastes and preferences. "Different strokes for different folks doesn't seem to work for you. More like, "There's a Wrong way of doing something and then there's my way."
I have no problem with different strokes ... I do have a problem with extra UI encumbrance with no appreciable gameplay benefit.
If you're going to continue supporting a ridiculous argument, I'm going to continue calling you on it.
And there you prove my point. Ridiculous, in your opinion
means that it is ridiculous for EVERYONE.
A "ridiculous argument", to me, is one that seems baseless, flawed, or otherwise easily refuted.* If we disagree on something, and you make an argument that appears senseless, then yes, I will tear it to shreds if I can. I will try to show that it is senseless and why it is senseless. If the idea is actually sound, then I can be shown why it actually makes sense. That hasn't happened here.
*dorkboy nailed it.
There have even been several others that mentioned they would like to see multiple ammo types, but they've gone silent. Why? Probably because they don't want you dumping your bile on them too.
Maybe. I had a nice side conversation with Archangel, who I barely know. Most of what he said made sense. If there are others, it's even possible that they looked at the case against and were convinced. Who knows, maybe they really are just terrified by my tyrannical "posting a lot" and the presumably corrupt backing of my red name masters rendering me impervious to oversight. This is the first I've heard about it, but maybe. I'll keep an eye on that.
ONE WORD. Do you notice just how much of your rage you have dumped on me because I used "non-functional" instead of "sub-optimal" or "less appealing" -- which happens to be closer to what I actually meant?
You were talking about combinations that "really aren't worth considering for use". Your words. To me, a build beneath consideration isn't "less appealing" - it's gimped. If you meant to say that most builds are perfectly functional but some are merely a little better than others, you didn't communicate that very well at all.
Throw in a +5 Holy Avenger at the beginning of the game and saying, "Don't use it if you don't want to," doesn't make it any less a part of the design.
And throwing in a couple dozen stat-altering shrines didn't
? Apparently they think that some unbalancing is tolerable.
Therefore unbalancing things even more is a good idea. Nope.
When a design gives mechanical rewards for certain behaviors, then yes, that is compulsion.
Poppycock. Your complaint was initially that ammo swaps would require two
more button pushes. And now we're here. I can see how adversely you are affected by compulsion.
Two button pushes for a "no-brain" choice is still too many. Maybe we should add a "breathing menu". Every turn you have to open the breathing menu and push B if you want your character to breathe. It's just two button pushes! The thing is, there is no worthwhile choice invovled - of course you want your guys to breathe. Just like of course you want to use AP ammo against armored targets. No substantial decision, no meaningful choice, no reason to jump through an extra hoop to make it happen.
So your argument is: who cares, balance is crap anyway. Got it.
Now who is tossing out "All or nothing" arguments? What I said was "They apparently aren't massively concerned about balancing the final product." How do you go from "massively" to "not at all"?
When I say balance is important, and you say well eh, they don't seem to be doing much balancing, the implication is that balance is not important to you. I maintain that every new thing we throw in to unbalance the game further is a bad idea. We can disagree on this, but it seems weird to be flying a flag for weaker game balance.
I've yet to hear about a game even vaguely in this format that used ammo types and was better for it.
What you keep leaving out is "in my opinion". Plenty of players actually like
having ammo choices. But if they value their peace of mind, they would be wise to keep that opinion to somewhere that you don't see it.
If no one even tries
to make a case for it, it's kind of hard to take the idea seriously. I asked you what games did it well, and once again you decline to answer, refusing to show some kind of external evidence to give your opinion some weight. Millions of games have done it before and it's made them better, but you can't name one? or explain why it was more fun that way? I don't have to freaking agree with you on a matter of taste, but it would help if you would illustrate what your taste is
When you say, "It's great in some games," and I say, "Oh yeah? Like what?" that's not me shutting you down. That's me giving you an opportunity to show me what the hell you're talking about. Take advantage of it.
What is in dispute is whether it would add enough to the game to be worth not only the development and balancing time, but the extra hassle on the part of the user. [In my opinion.]
Amazing how much more tolerable that statement is when just three words are added.
Sigh. Of course it's my opinion. Everything I say is my opinion unless I back it up with factual information. Are we philosophy students, that I need to put a disclaimer in every paragraph?
And forgive me for being personal, but for someone who chides me about not saying "in my opinion" often enough, you sure don't use the phrase much yourself. Turnabout and all that.
When every reasonable person can be expected to make the same choice, can it meaningfully be called a 'choice'?
So your reasonable "solution" is to deny them the choice entirely?
Yes. Absolutely. When the answer is obvious, it's silly to ask the question. I don't need the game to ask me that question a thousand times over the course.
But, but, that would require two more button pushes! Soooooooo much better to not have the choice then to burden everyone with having to do two additional button clicks per ammo swap.
Whether it's a dozen, two, or just one, meaningless button presses are best eliminated.
And this was a serious question:
What sort of player do you suppose would deliberately choose to use ammo that doesn't work as well?
Still waiting to hear why this is a meaningful 'choice'.
Congratulations, Zombra. You will have once again silenced a dissenting opinion. Dealing with your tirades reminds me why I quit the forum before. Here, arguments are "won" by the more tenacious opinion-holder. The one that harasses a differing opinion-holder until he shuts up or leaves. Obviously, you have no interest in allowing anyone to have an opinion that is at odds with any that you hold dear.
I'll refrain from comment here. If this whole thing is over, I'm delighted.
TTFN (No, that's not right.) Adios.
Vaya con Dios.