Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

7 = 3x4; 8 = 3x6; 9 = 3x8 ("Do unto the AI as you would have the AI do unto you.")

2»

Comments

  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 3,632
    edited October 2016
    Ygramul said:


    Quite frankly, one reason why BG is still alive after so many years is that it is really well balanced (especially with some staple mods like SCS).

    Really? I did never noticed it, I think that it is completely unbalanced, the fact that LoB, with its enemies cheating on level, thac0 and HP, to the extent to have a foe that should have 4HP having 92HP, or mods like Tactics that cheat in an other way, but cheat no less, can be beat and has been beat by many players, not only by some exceptionally gifted ones (that can beat them also no reload or soloing not so powerful classes) is a clear clue of how the game is not balanced at all, even if is amazingly funny and interesting to play.
    Are you saying that a Kensage or a Berseker->Mage is balanced against an unkitted Druid? Try to solo both trough an hard modded game :wink:
    The plain truth is that those games are not balanced at all, not in the relative power of the possible classes, kits and combinations of them and as balance between party and enemies, as the enemies have only a fight to win and sometimes some special powers (Dragons, Mind Flyers, Beholders and Vampires), but a lame AI. The party has the better equipment and use a human brain instead of limited scripts.
    The game is completely unbalanced in favor of the party. And this is done intentionally to let new completely not experienced players beat it without too much frustration. Seeing how an experienced player has no challenge at all in beating a vanilla game and how many can beat it even if hard modded is a clear demonstration of what I tell, the balance stuff is only one of the many urban legends.

    Edit: are the SCS Beholders in their full glory well balanced? And Bodhi?
    end of Edit
    Ygramul said:


    To each his own.

    On this I completely agree, and I was very careful to insert in my post "for me is fine if some players choose to not use certain spells or not use them in certain situations and combinations, if is what make their own gaming more satisfying is the best thing that they can do ".
    I don't want to impose over others my tastes or my opinions, I try to keep my opinions on an objective arguing, when they are not related with my tastes, bringing facts, and not my personal taste, as motivations of what I say. But, when taste matters, for me each player is the king in his own game.

    semiticgod
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 3,632


    ............................

    Really? Really? You, with your "infinitely more adaptable and flexible brain" can't see that the spirit of the Contingency spell is to prepare something now and only use it later? And not a method to simply do something especially powerful right now? Because that is literally the dictionary definition of the word "contingency."
    I am not a native English speaker, so here I am clearly at a disadvantage.
    But a quick research on the net give me:

    Simple Definition of contingency: something (such as an emergency) that might happen
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contingency

    and also
    1.
    a. An event that may occur but that is not likely or intended; a possibility.
    b. A possibility that must be prepared for; a future emergency.
    2. The condition of being dependent on chance; uncertainty.
    3. Something incidental to something else.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contingency

    To prepare something now and only use it later seems to be only one of the possible meanings, prepare something now to solve now a particular, not expected or anyway uncertain situation, seems to be well inside the meaning of contingency. This on top of what I already told, is quite clear that the intention of the developers was to have them usable also in combat, no flag to avoid it used and even the fact that they bypass also the 1 spell per round limit, fact that has no reason to be implemented for something that is supposed to be used in advance, and very relevant in combat.
    Also you used the words that I did quote for both the contingencies and the sequencers, telling that also the sequencers are supposed to. Using only your personal taste and the ignoring possible meanings of the word contingency as reasons, being judgmental toward other players and ignoring the facts that they bring to the discussions.


    I must say, hearing people brag about using exploits

    Sorry sir, I did not brag, actually I did not even told if and how often I use sequencers and contingencies, in combat or preparing them before. I was only bringing facts in support of my opinion that the use in combat is intended by the developers so completely legitimate. But it seems that you are too proud of your personal tastes and opinions that not only are judgmental on other people's play style, but you even fail to get the difference between having an opinion, and supporting it with facts, and bragging.

    I don't appreciate how you quoted my words telling: You, with your "infinitely more adaptable and flexible brain" .
    Giving to my words a meaning completely different from the one they had in the context where they has been used. This is not being excellent to each other.

    The fact that in the actual run I did use exactly 0 contingences, seqencers and triggers even if I have 5 characters in the party with them or some of them memorized is not relevant to what I am telling, but maybe it can be interesting to you to know it.


    - You are invisible while a Mislead or Project Image clone exists... BUT you cannot attack or cast spells during that time.

    You are obviously free to mod the game as you like, and the players are obviously free to use or not use your mods. My opinion is that those enhancements are fantastic, the mislead clone will finally be used for what he was created for, sing the enhanced bard song, stacking with the bard singing (the pour guy is prevented from attacking and casting, he has to do something :smile: ). For the mage the mislead will be a fantastic replacement of the lev2 spell invisibility, less useful as the duration is much lesser and the clone is a lot more delicate than the normal invisibility as can also be eliminated by physical damage and spells that don't dispel invisibility. And the caster can only hope that an other party mage dispel it or the enemies focus their attention on it, if he wants to exit from the forced inactivity. But we all know how the lev2 slots are very valuable and rare and the lev6 ones are given in larger numbers and not so useful.
    About the caster that can not cast or attack while a PI is active @Grond0 has told everything, even if he was so polite to disguise it with a fake question.
    I apologize because here I am getting ironical, but you are a modder that I respect, I told more than a single time that your mods can be an interesting and viable way to change the game, I did it recently in a topic where you was not named by others, not only when the discussion was already about your mods.
    And from a person that I respect and admire for his modding work I expect more than that.
    My respect and admiration are still there, and the fact that I have different tastes is not affecting them, I appreciate things if they are well done, not because they are done in the way I like.

    semiticgod
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited October 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    semiticgodAndreaColombo
  • zt6zt6 Member Posts: 1
    In PnP, Contingency has a 1 turn casting time. In BG time, that would be 60 seconds.

    Ygramulsemiticgod
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member Posts: 14,407
    @subtledoctor: People who like exploits are usually the first people to say that "developer intent" need not restrict our playstyles. We agree with you on that point.

    But I don't think anyone is putting exploits on a pedestal. Beamdog eliminated one of my favorite exploits, the spider gnome trick, and I have yet to complain about it, or ask them to bring it back. Same goes for the potion swap glitch or the hotkey trick. Nor have I heard anyone else complain about these changes.

    If we put exploits on a pedestal, we would have demanded (or at least requested) that Beamdog put the exploit back in. But we didn't. We just moved on.

    I don't think anyone is getting in people's faces about this. No one has asked you to start using exploits, or change your playstyle. Nor has anyone asked you to change Scales of Balance to allow these exploits. The closest I've seen is @Ardanis's joke comparing your mod to Sikret's. But I think that was a jab at Sikret rather than you.

    Ardanisloliengorgonzola
  • jinxed75jinxed75 Member Posts: 157

    Sorry sir, I did not brag, actually I did not even told if and how often I use sequencers and contingencies, in combat or preparing them before. I was only bringing facts in support of my opinion that the use in combat is intended by the developers so completely legitimate.

    It's about as intentional as Mislead clones singing Bard Songs. The very term "Contingency" goes against the thought of reloading them in-combat.
    Everyone is free to play the game as he wishes, but we shouldn't go as far as promoting exploits as regular tactics.

  • jinxed75jinxed75 Member Posts: 157


    It would actually be an extremely important counter to Wizard Slayer/Assassin/Blackguard Fire Seeds or Darts +5 from the Cloak of Stars, as contingencies and sequencers are unaffected by spell failure and cannot be disrupted.

    I'd also like to see enemies use the Fire Seed trick on the party. One of the best things that SCS did was not to nerf or replace powerful spells, but to allow the enemy to use the same tactics that many players used--pre-buffing, Minute Meteors between spells, II+SI: Div, Summon Fallen Planetar, Greater Malison+Sunfire, Flame Arrow x3 Spell Sequencer, etc... even Wish, if not Wish-resting. Rather than weakening the player, SCS strengthens the enemy, and I think that's much more fun for most people.

    Much of the mage/fighter imbalance in BG2 is actually because there are so few properly equipped high-level fighters in the game. An epic-level Barbarian with Hardiness, Greater Whirlwind Attack, and Smite, equipped with a weapon like the Flail of Ages or Celestial Fury or Carsomyr or the Silver Sword, would be about as difficult as a lich with mage HLAs and pre-buffs.

    The basic philosophy of SCS is to make enemies better without resorting to exploits and flat-out cheating. So suggesting to incorporate exploits kind of defeats the purpose, and I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole.
    There are other mods for these kinds of exercises, they have no place in SCS, imho. I can see why you would enjoy it, as your playstyle kills off any semblance of challenge in SCS, but there's tons of other people who cherish SCS for sticking to rules.
    As for the epic-level barbarian, there's always the CoC encounter of RR. Grok carries a 10% no save stun Axe in one hand, and a 25% save vs spell or held Sword in his other. Combined with all the other cheese being employed there, it satisfies my thirst for that kind of fun for a playthrough. Wouldn't have that as the state of normalcy.
    aTweaks supplies Balors, Pit Fiends and Planetars with vorpal weaponry, turning them into pretty dangerous opponents, especially pre-ToB.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited October 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    semiticgodlolien
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member Posts: 14,407
    @subtledoctor: One thing I never liked about sequencers and contingencies is that they have to be replaced every time you use them up. Judging by the spell files, it looks entirely possible to change that by removing the "Remove Spell" opcode 172. That way, you could just use up that same sequencer once per day without having to restore it. The disadvantage is that this would lock the sequencer in place, and if you wanted to change what was in it, you'd need a separate spell called "Dispel Spell Sequencer" or whatever to remove it.

    This would require an extra string and extra icon for the new spell, but I think it would actually streamline the process for the player, since most people would want to stick with one sequencer.

    There is one kind of clunky way to tweak Mislead bard songs. You could add a "Use EFF" opcode to a certain bard kit's song spell, make the .eff file only apply to illusionary critters, and rig the .eff file to change the Mislead clone's bard song to a special variant. You could use this to make a high-level Skald's clone automatically switch to a weaker version. EE's Remove Resource opcode, of course, would prevent stacking. The idea would be that the bard could harmonize with the clone, providing an extra bonus but not flat-out doubling the effect.

    You could do the same for the weaker Mislead clone-exclusive song, and allow a bard to harmonize with multiple different clones, but each one would provide less and less benefit. Using the Protection from Spell opcode could even allow you to create special songs that are only possible with X number of clones, and if any of them die, the clone troupe can only perform a weaker joint song.

    Grond0ThacoBell
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

    semiticgodGrond0
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member Posts: 14,407
    @subtledoctor: Cool!

    You could always separate Mislead into a bard- and wizard-specific spell. Since it's already an on-self spell, using the "use effect file" opcode could make it cast one spell for bards and another spell for wizards. I think you can add kit-specific effects, too, so Skalds or Illusionists could actually get different benefits from the spell.

  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,511

    As for Mislead, that is all very creative, I like the ideas a lot. My issue is, it's all bard-centric. What does any of that do for a wizard? If the spell goes toward a design that is particularly for bards, then let it be a bard ability, I say. But Illusionists deserve something cool at 6th level.

    You could allow the Mislead clone to trigger traps. Another possibility would be for it's death to cause an effect to enemies nearby, e.g. a save vs confusion might make sense as the enemies wonder what happened to it.

    semiticgod
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 3,632
    @subtledoctor @jinxed75
    I gave links to 2 English Language online dictionaries that show that to prepare something in advance is only one of the meaning of contingency.
    The fact that the flag was not existing in the original is true, but in EE it exist and who implemented it choose to not use it for the 5 spells you say that is an exploit to set in combat. And for vanilla @TrentOster is the king that rules, not you or me or our personal opinions. What he or his team allow is allowed, is not an exploit, point. Unless someone can DEMONSTRATE that he was not aware of the possibility, in this case is silly to think so.
    An other fact is that nowhere in the spells descriptions I can find evidence about the theory that they have to be set only outside combat, about the spells names I gave some clues of how, even if I am not proficient in English language, is only one of the possible meanings of a word used in only 2 of the 5 names.
    About the fact that the contingences have the special and unique characteristic of ignoring the 1 spell/round limit, that has sense only for a spell used also in combat, you simply ignored the thing.

    I brought many facts to the thesis that using contingences and sequencers in combat is not an exploit and, at least partially, countered your only fact, the meaning of the word contingency.
    You brought only your personal opinions on what according to your tastes and not on facts have to be regarded as exploit, in a game of which nor you nor I are the developers, the ones entitled to set the rules. And a single fact, partially countered by me, based on a word used in the name of only 2 of the 5 spells. And I can couter it even better telling that the word contingency was used because the spell triggers not when the caster decide to have it trigger, but when a set condition happens. With sequencers or the other spells the caster decide if and when to fire them. With contingiences the caster set a condition, than the spell is fired at the moment that the check about that condition is positive, with no caster's further intervention, it happens even if the caster is unconscious or incapacitated. That is why they are called contingences, they set something to happen if something else also happens. And this is true both if they are set 3 weeks before or only a couple of seconds before, both if the triggering event was a remote possibility or is an actual and very probable one.
    The fact that the mage can use the contingence in a sound combat tactic, like when he kills or lure away minor helpers and then set the contingency to trigger on enemy seen and its target the nearest enemy, is only a good use of his tactical supremacy, if he can manage to have it.

    To use a CC to target a not targetable enemy, like setting a CC (3x RRoR) on nearest enemy to dispel an enemy protected by Spell shield, SI abiuration, SI divination and improved invisibility can be regarded as an exploit, is very probable that it is an exploit, even if is a thing known by many and reported on the net many years ago, and the developers never nerfed it. It can be regarded as an exploit that the developers choose to leave possible, and only forcing the things can be regarded as something clearly intended by the developers as not exploiting.
    But too many facts, opposed only to your opinions and your choice of using only one of the meanings of the word contingency, the one that has no correspondence both in spell description and game mechanics, prove that what you call an exploit is not so.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    @everyone as I am not at home and don't have access to EE can someone please test and confirm that the 6 spells in 7 secs tactic using sequencers is not possible?

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited October 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 3,632
    edited October 2016
    Edit, spoiler added, the reason in my post below this
    [spoiler]



    1) You are being willfully obtuse about the name and description. The word means, more or less, in every context, "something that follows something else." How do we know the meaning in this context is about preparing now and then triggering in the future? Because that's how the spell works. So, using it to do two things immediately, simultaneously, right away, is contrary to the spirit, name, meaning, and function of the spell.

    Of course, the engine allows it, so if you want to do that, God bless. That's fine. I have different preferences.

    Thanks for the willfully obtuse, I appreciate your effort in being excellent to each other :smile:
    In my utter obtusity I can see how you contradict yourself in the same post and how you continue to ignore what other people say, just because only your personal taste is relevant.

    "How do we know the meaning in this context is about preparing now and then triggering in the future? Because that's how the spell works"
    and then
    "Of course, the engine allows it, so if you want to do that"
    How can you fail to see that if the engine allow to cast not one, but all the 5 spells we are talking about, as normal behavior, without using any special trick or spell combination to have it working, is not possible that "that's how the spell works", referred to an opposite behavior, can also be true.

    "So, using it to do two things immediately, simultaneously, right away, is contrary to the spirit, name, meaning, and function of the spell. "
    About the name I already gave the explanation, but let me repeat it, because is possible that you are just dumb as me, and not only ignoring deliberately what you don't like to hear, but you have no arguments to counter. The fact that both the contingency spells work setting a condition and having the spell trigger when that condition is met is more than enough for qualifying them as, and naming them contingences. And that this happens also if the condition is set during the combat, and the spells fires few second after.
    About the function of a spell can be known both by the spell description and the spell mechanics, in both cases, as them are implemented by the developers, there is nothing that seems to prevent to casting them in combat.
    About the "spirit" please bring some clue that is not only based on your personal taste and opinion about how it should be, we are not supposed to accept what you say as THE TRUTH, just because for you is a truth, not when we are debating about if something IS or IS NOT an exploit.



    2) Your "sound combat tactic" that takes advantage of a quirk in the engine is someone else's "exploit." You are the only one coming around here saying, more or less, "my way of thinking is the only RIGHT way!" It's a little bit rude. Not extremely rude, but a definitely a little bit. Why are you so intent on "proving" that you are right and others are wrong? This is the Internet; you're never going to win such arguments.

    You are not someone else, there are many players that use with no problem contingences while in combat, and don't feel to exploit anything. I mainly use contingences while in combat because I don't want to abuse of the metaknowledge that I have setting them before, and this is not beneficial, I loose useful combat time to do it, and almost never use them as a trick to multiply my spells per round, not more than I could have done setting them before using metaknowledge.
    Also I am not trying to impose my way of thinking over others, I am trying to bring facts, and not opinions or mere tastes, to support it. Is this be rude?
    Also I don't want to impose my way of thinking, my goal is eventually to avoid that others, like you, impose their way of thinking, saying that what many other players use with no problem IS an exploit, that is completely different than saying "I regard it as an exploit, so I don't use it".
    Thing that I did in other circumstances, like talking of stacking thieving potions, lowering the difficulty slider on level up for maxed HP rolls or the learn/erase strategy to get XP, I don't like them, I don't use them, but as the developers decided to leave those things possible I don't call those things exploits and I try my best to don't be judgmental on who has a different opinion about.
    This is the Internet, and everyone who read with enough attention can discriminate between facts and opinions only based on personal taste, up to disagree about the fact that are the developers that define the rules and the spirit of a game that they produce and sell.


    I think the whole point of this thread is, the AI can't use that tactic, so it's sort of like playing a game where you have a bunch of tanks and your AI opponent only has spearmen. That can certainly be fun in its way... but it's not the kind of fun I want out of BG.

    If I had played as much as @semiticgod I would probably have very similar preferences. But I only play these games about once per year, So I still like to play the traditional way. So I set up my game to put me and the AI on as even a playing field as I can, the better to derive satisfaction from progressing.

    I already told that there are many things that the AI is not able to do and the human player is.
    But if you want to really avoid what the AI-enemies can not do I think that not using almost all the good equipment that a norml party has, avoid to use spells when the enemy is not able to cast them, avoid to use Inquisitors and high APR fighters when dealing with mage only groups of enemies, avoid to use the spells that the enemy mage don't use in that encounter are other wonderful ways to improve your fun.
    Those are all things that the AI can not do.
    The game IS tanks against spearman, the fact that even giving the spearman 3x HP + 80, illegal thac0 and ST your party can win show how the game is not fair at all. Using sequencers and contingences in combat is only the 0.1% of the player's advantage over the AI controlled enemy.
    To don't use the feature as personal choice is perfectly fine, but to over estimate the impact that this have to the game or to call exploit things that are used by a part of the playing community, without bringing other than opinions and taste as a motivation, is different.

    Probably if you would have played a little more and mod a little less you would have a better understanding of game balance (or game unbalance as I like to call it), you have certainly a fantastic knowledge over the engine and script mechanics, but this is only half of the equation, the real strength of a player is experience, knowledge acquired "on the battlefield", not the use of cheating, cheese and exploits. And usually the more a player is experienced the less he has to depend on cheese and exploits, even if, for personal taste, can decide to research in them and use them in his actual game. But he has no problem in beating the game, even hard modded, sometimes even in a no reload situation, without relying on cheese and exploits.
    Is the still not experienced one that depends on cheese and exploit, usually other people's recipes, when he want to try environments too hard for his level of experience. But I see it as a part of the learning process, even in Jazz music, where improvisation is so important, the beginners often copy the masters soloes and musical phrases, and are only bad photocopies of the originals, but doing that they learn a lot and, even if this is counterintuitive, it helps them a lot in developing a personal style.

    [/spoiler]

    Post edited by gorgonzola on
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 3,632
    As I am aware that a long debate between few people can be really annoying for those who want to follow the tread but are not interested in the debate I put my answer to @jinxed75 under spoiler, I will also edit my previous post, who is answering to @subtledoctor for the same reason.
    [spoiler]
    jinxed75 said:

    Sorry sir, I did not brag, actually I did not even told if and how often I use sequencers and contingencies, in combat or preparing them before. I was only bringing facts in support of my opinion that the use in combat is intended by the developers so completely legitimate.

    It's about as intentional as Mislead clones singing Bard Songs. The very term "Contingency" goes against the thought of reloading them in-combat.
    Everyone is free to play the game as he wishes, but we shouldn't go as far as promoting exploits as regular tactics.
    Mislead clones singing Bard Songs seem to me a completely different thing. I use it, I gave my RP "justification" of it in the topic dealing with justifications, but I never told that is surely not an exploit, even if it can be done with no problem in a vanilla game, imo is an exploit left open by the developers for who like to use it.
    Is not on the same level of intention because
    1. nothing in the spell description suggest that it has not to be done
    2. is doable with no tricks or workarounds in the vanilla game and has never be nerfed, even if is long time known.
    3. in case of contingences a special feature, useful only when used in combat, is part of the spell, and no other spell use that feature afaik.
    4. in case of sequencers what the OP told is wrong, unless I am proved wrong, and I asked to test it as for me now is not possible. If I am right setting a sequencer in combat can be detrimental, 2 rounds, casting wise, and 4 spells, one of them a valuable lev7-8 one, are used, to cast 3 spells. To trade spell number and spell level for a little more speed is seldom an advantage.


    Everyone is free to play the game as he wishes, but we shouldn't go as far as flagging as exploits, bringing only our personal taste about or ignoring other people's points when we bring facts, like the word contingency meaning, when dealing with tactics that are widely used in online and YT walktroughts and by a part of the gaming community.
    I was not promoting anything, if you want me to promote exploits I have a full list, some of them not known on the net afaik, but that was not my intention.
    My intention was, and is, to have people explain, bringing reasons and not personal tastes, why they think and tell that in absolute, and not only according tho his taste, something has to be flagged as exploit, when is available, without workarounds, in the vanilla game.
    And this has nothing to do with game balance, as using the shield of Balduran has nothing to do with exploiting, as is a clearly intended feature of the game, even if I personally never use it, it affects game balance and is something that enemy's AI don't do it.
    [/spoiler]

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited October 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
    Ygramul
  • YgramulYgramul Member Posts: 1,059
    edited October 2016
    *nod*

    I appreciate any civilized discourse involving tastes and choices.


    My own vote for future development of games and mods is to make them *symmetric* and *balanced* between AI and the player.

    gorgonzola
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 3,632
    @subtledoctor
    I think that there is a misunderstanding.
    I respect opinions. I told more than one time in the topic that I respect if someone tells "in my opinion xxx is an exploit, so I don't use it". And also "I would not touch it with a 10 ft polearm" for me is fine, a stronger opinion but still an opinion.
    What is for me a problem is when someone tells "xxx is an exploit beyond my opinions or your opinions" using his opinions to demonstrate that, and not bringing facts, that are the only relevant thing if we want to determine something beyond opinions. The name of the spells that you brought is a fact, and the motivations that I brought, like the spell descriptions, are facts, not opinions, are things existing beyond our having opinions. We can debate about if they are relevant, but they are true beyond our having opinions.
    There are certain things in those games that are surely exploits, 99% of the players agree about it, even if some of them can use those exploits. Using the clerical spell that set a certain value of MR, with no save, to lower enemy's MR is an example. Using in not EE a CC to have up to 4 PI active at the same time, or use a PI to summon ignoring the summon limit are other examples. Almost everyone agree about these things being exploits.
    There are other things that someone regard as exploits and others regard as not exploits, like the things that here we are debating, and as long as our position is an opinion both the positions are fine, everyone is obviously free to have his opinions about.
    But when someone tells that those things are exploits, in absolute, not only in his opinion, that someone has to prove what he tells, with facts. Further more if that person is the first to be rude, quoting things like "infinitely more adaptable and flexible brain" out of the context where the phrase was used, giving it a derespectful flavor, use the phrase "hearing people brag about using exploits" when no one was bragging about anything, or uses argumentation like "presumably, as a favor to @semiticgod. :wink:" or "@TrentOster's particular, slightly munchkiny, house-ruled version of AD&D".
    Because the "@TrentOster's particular, slightly munchkiny, house-ruled version of AD&D" is what we have bought, is our common ground, what defines if something is or is not an exploit in this CRPG. That is not a true transposition of a certain version of the PnP game, and not all the players use as a surrogate of it, some of us regard it as a computer game having his peculiarities even if is inspired on the PnP game, and both positions are fine, are part of our freedom of having opinions.
    Than we are obviously free to like or dislike it, to avoid some spells, items or tactics that we don't like and even to mod it and make it something completely different, according to our taste and opinions.
    But when someone tells that something IS an exploit, for everybody, beyond personal opinions is that common ground that we have to consider as a starting point, if the vanilla CRPG seems to allow something as normal behavior that something is not an exploit, in absolute. Even if we are free to regard it as an exploit in our own gaming and avoid it.
    Not doing that, imposing on the common ground, the CRPG as it is, our opinions about it, and telling that what does not fit our opinions is, for every user of the CRPG, an exploit, we are rude, judgmental, not excellent to each other.

  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member Posts: 14,407
    A friendly reminder that the site rules do not allow flaming or disrespectful behavior. If you feel that somebody is breaking these rules, the best way to handle them is not to confront the other person directly. Flag the post in question or send a PM to a mod and we will address the issue according to the site rules.

    Although I am heartened by a recent turn in the conversation so far--in which it has shifted towards substantive issues--I am concerned that if things continue as they are, we will lose this discussion to an unproductive argument. Roughly half of this thread so far consists of a lengthy debate over the meaning of the word contingency, and another lengthy debate about that debate. Neither has shed much light on the subject at hand: how we play the game and when/if we use tactics that the AI cannot use against us.

    I believe it is time to retire this train of thought and move on to other issues relevant to the thread's original topic.

    YgramulgorgonzolaJuliusBorisovAlonso
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 3,632
    I will do it. I was aware about how the thing was getting OT and annoying for the most of the readers, this is the reason why I did put my text walls under spoiler, If not quoted about I will refrain to derail further, and probably even if quoted.

    semiticgod
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

    gorgonzolasemiticgod
  • gorgonzolagorgonzola Member Posts: 3,632
    I don't know if it do more harm than good, but surely it can cause the things you tell. Even if is our responsibility to use it for the good and not the bad, I am convinced that I had my responsibility in derailing the topic, is not only fault of the quote/tag function :blush:

    But we are going again OT, even if this time we are partially agreeing... :smiley:

Sign In or Register to comment.