The tone and name calling in this thread needs to stop now or I will shut it down. This is the only warning I am giving. I won't name anyone specifically.
Man you are thoroughly unpleasant when you want to make a point, you lead with slight and then try to back it up with your argument. It's not what I would call civil and that's why I wrote back to you in the manner I did.
Lets take a look at your first reply, where you claim I gave no reasons for it's restriction. I in fact gave many, mostly not dealing with my opinion, but grounded in what was said earlier in the thread about the beta testing leading to it's restriction.
Next you have an admin saying to his knowledge there are different rings, and that it shouldn't stack a scant few posts south of mine. And by the way...this goes hand in hand with me telling you prior there are in fact two different rings. (Not an opinion again)
On top of that I bring up how people used to exploit getting two rings of Gaxx in BG2 (which is not supposed to happen), and how rings of protection do not stack.
None of this has to do with my opinion. I just find your obstinate need to be a jerk in this regard to be boring. You can't think of a single more creative ring combination in the entire game?
It was never intended to stack, and it's always been a loophole. Yes fighters can dual wield. Because they train in weapons. Mages can teleport! You don't see me complaining about that?
Hypocrisy would involve me wanting a double-standard here. Which I don't. My only opinions expressed centered around how people want to view an uninspiring loophole as cannon to the game.
(As well as to your aggressive demeanor)
I did in fact tag everyone in this thread, because I figured it would resolve itself faster if people who initially defended such a loophole were forced to talk it out with others who positioned facts from beta testing results to intended play mechanics...etc. Not so you could be small.
You're going to give me a lecture on civility after telling, quite literally, a whole list of people that they're wrong, you're right and that they should study your list of easily counterable points and then feel silly for even discussing the subject. Is it possible they could have valid points and making a declaration of "I'm right, you're wrong" to a whole list of people could be perceived as a dick move? Nah, didn't even occur to you. Is berating people for making points about a subject they feel needs discussing then turning round and making points about the same subject hypocritical? I'll give ten points to anyone who can guess the answer. I'm not even sure what to call that kind of brazen arrogance. Thats amazing. You are amazing. You make me want to contact a team of scientists to study you just incase you're some kind of rosetta stone for curing megalomania. Thats how in awe I am. The idea I have to justify being sarcastic about that kind of blatant ego masturbatory session is frankly laughable.
Actually I didn't state you gave no reasons, I stated you gave no valid reasons. Beta testers aren't always right about everything and admins are entitled to put across points for their side of the discussion just like everyone else. Yes there are different rings, that doesn't mean all of them are different. The question isn't if they were meant to stack or not, the question is why shouldn't they. On a side note most admins don't object to free inquiry and discussion and I don't think that one would either.
I also stated I know theres different rings so theres a big sign you just scanned through and then typed a reply. Maybe you missed the part I said "So what?". If you could scroll up and actually read what I typed instead of guessing that would be awesome. I'm not even sure why you bring up rings of gaax. Everyone knows theres only supposed to be one in BG2 which isn't the case with the rings of wizardry in BG1. Ring of Gaax isn't even BG1. Its a complete non-point. It has no relevance whatsoever. Rings of protection shouldn't stack for obvious reasons but even if that were not the case there is no hint in the description they can be worn together. The rings of wizardry description outright says they can be and that many were made.
Theres two rings of wizardry in BG1. Is it a glitch? No. Is it a cheat? No. Its in the game. There are meant to be two in the game, there are meant to be many in Faerun. Is there any reason in the lore why you can't wear them? No. Would it be overpowered? No. So what good reason is there to not be able to wear two? Is there any valid reason whatsoever? Take a wild guess.
You know, I get that we've been warned here, so I've bit my tongue a bit. In real life I'd have skipped to browbeating you with your own self-involved nonsense from the start. (But that's maybe not the best way to deal with this either way when I think about it) - Chows Monty Python and the holy grail reference is a little too fitting with the way you behave here my friend. But the truth is. You're indeed a very small person. I was the right the first time, so nothing else need be said. So go on, write about how I'm some inflammatory-megalomanical-something or another. Continue to exaggerate my reasoning for even bothering to post, etc. It's Friday night, and I have plans which don't involve letting my being a little irritated get the better of me. I wish you a good evening, and hopefully in the future you will consider that maybe being rash and insulting isn't the way to get a point across.
I still disagree with you, but maybe someone will make a mod where you can use two rings if you ask nicely worst come to worst. Have a good one.
I'm sorry if you wind up feeling that I replied in too strong a manner, you're completely right to want to keep the peace. And I won't be posting in this thread anymore.
You know, I get that we've been warned here, so I've bit my tongue a bit. In real life I'd have skipped to browbeating you with your own self-involved nonsense from the start. (But that's maybe not the best way to deal with this either way when I think about it) - Chows Monty Python and the holy grail reference is a little too fitting with the way you behave here my friend. But the truth is. You're indeed a very small person. I was the right the first time, so nothing else need be said. So go on, write about how I'm some inflammatory-megalomanical-something or another. Continue to exaggerate my reasoning for even bothering to post, etc. It's Friday night, and I have plans which don't involve letting my being a little irritated get the better of me. I wish you a good evening, and hopefully in the future you will consider that maybe being rash and insulting isn't the way to get a point across.
I still disagree with you, but maybe someone will make a mod where you can use two rings if you ask nicely worst come to worst. Have a good one.
You basically just ignored an admin and carried on. I think that says it all.
Comments
You know, I get that we've been warned here, so I've bit my tongue a bit. In real life I'd have skipped to browbeating you with your own self-involved nonsense from the start. (But that's maybe not the best way to deal with this either way when I think about it) - Chows Monty Python and the holy grail reference is a little too fitting with the way you behave here my friend. But the truth is. You're indeed a very small person. I was the right the first time, so nothing else need be said. So go on, write about how I'm some inflammatory-megalomanical-something or another. Continue to exaggerate my reasoning for even bothering to post, etc. It's Friday night, and I have plans which don't involve letting my being a little irritated get the better of me. I wish you a good evening, and hopefully in the future you will consider that maybe being rash and insulting isn't the way to get a point across.
I still disagree with you, but maybe someone will make a mod where you can use two rings if you ask nicely worst come to worst. Have a good one.
I'm sorry if you wind up feeling that I replied in too strong a manner, you're completely right to want to keep the peace. And I won't be posting in this thread anymore.