40 réponses à ce sujet

[Larkusix]

In order to avoid that thread BG2 Sorcerer Spell List 2010 gets even more off-topic, I propose, that any further discussion about Projected Image and Spell Trap will be continued here, if there is demand to continue it.

Modifié par Larkusix, 16 septembre 2010 - 11:16 .

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Larkusix wrote... (1:36 AM 2010-09-16)

Hello Humanoid_Taifun,



I think I better write a PM instead of risking to derail the thread even further.

You wrote:

"I think I can agree with you, to some extent."

Okay.



"If you are in a battle and your simulacrum sends you a level 9 spell-scroll so you can cast Dragon's Breath, okay. That looks completely okay in my eyes."

I see your point. It is of course cheesy, since Simulacra don't use up the original spell-scrolls. It is even more cheesy in the case of level 9 spell-scrolls, that normally come only in very limited supply. Don't you agree?



"But casting Spell Trap, then Simulacrum and completely refilling your spellbook, then having the Simmy expire and go into combat with a full spellbook?

Exploit. (IMO)"



So I suspect, that you find that Endless Spells Strategies are an excessive use of an otherwise legitimate feature. Am I right?

Humanoid_Taifun wrote... (2:34 AM 2010-09-16)

Partly.

As it is intended it gives you a certain set of extra resources (and an extra caster) for the duration of the spell. The first way (changing the spell into something more useful) takes both limitations (resources and time) into consideration, while the second one perpetuates the extra spells, and this turns quickly into an infinite energy supply.

(but maybe we should have started a new topic for this instead of bringing it to PMs)

So, now I hope I don't get sued by Larkusix for publishing his private letters.

[Larkusix]

You won't.

[Demivrgvs]

Oh cool, I can finally try to explain myself without going off-topic.

I've already explained here with objective facts that the Endless Spell Exploit doesn't exist in PnP, and thus I'd tend to conclude it isn't supposed to exist in the first place. But let's assume this game is not supposed to stay true to D&D.

The Endless Spell "Strategy" is a clear oversight from the designers imo (I don't blame them much, this game is HUGE). They simply hadn't hundreds of beta testers to discover all the little "tricks" a spell system with hundreds of spells can allow, and they dind't thought a player could abuse Project Image (which they failed to properly implement as per PnP) by casting even OFFENSIVE spells on themselves to recharge via Spell Trap.

Obviously that is a supposition, but it surely makes more sense imo than thinking they do wanted players to discover that by combining two not properly implemented spells (because both spells slightly differ from PnP), and by doing something really uncommon like casting spells against themselves, they would have infinity spells.

If that was really their masterplan...then it was a really lame masterplan! You want archmages to have infinite spells? Then go ahead, grant them infinite spells and spare players the annoying part where they spend minutes just to refill their spellbook with this silly "strategy". An uber improved Wondrous Recall that refreshes the spellbook would be the same, without the annoying and silly part.

I more or less agree that "one man's legitimate tactic is another man's exploit, and is another man's cheat"...but that's not always true imo.

In the other topic we ended up focusing on this supposed "strategy", but the real exploits/cheats I was fighting against were much more outstanding imo, because having 3x Project Image via Chain Contingency, or using Chain Contingency during game pause are without doubts not intended. You can like those things, no problems for me, but calling them LEGITIMATE is absurd. The former is as legal as using Protection from Normal Weapons together with Protection from Magical Weapons, because that too can be done exploiting how contingencies work. Those spells are EXPLICITLY supposed to not stack, just like PI is not supposed to be cast more than once.

Perhaps I'm too much a PnP lover, but I prefer when powergamers simply admit they are powergamers instead of trying to convince me they do legal and cool things. If you willing use exploits and cheats but you have fun, go for it, just please don't try to negate the obvious claiming you're a strategy genius.

Modifié par Demivrgvs, 16 septembre 2010 - 12:54 .

[Larkusix]

@Demivrgvs



Not everything, that is too powerful for everybody's taste is an exploit in my book!

[Humanoid_Taifun]

With as many mods as are generally used nowadays, I believe we should be a bit more allowing for "house rules". This does not mean "everything goes" or even "what the devs thought is completely unimportant", just that with us already being such a big influence on the overall appearance of the game, we should get a say in this matter as well.

[Larkusix]

@Humanoid_Taifun



Who is "we"?

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Anybody, everybody. Maybe I should have used the word "one" or "you"...

[Demivrgvs]

Larkusix wrote...

@Demivrgvs

Not everything, that is too powerful for everybody's taste is an exploit in my book!

Where have I said that everything that is too powerful is an exploit? If we want to discuss we must be fair to each other, else is completely pointless. I think Incantatar gave here a good description of what should generally be called an exploit.

Vanilla's Horrid Wilting is clearly overpowered, but do I call it an exploit? No, and I'd never do.
Improved Alacrity + Vecna is absurdly powerful, but do I call it an exploit? No, it's simply a cheap powergamer thing.

Are you trying to say that using Chain Contingency during game pause is fair and intended? Give me one reason to believe that and you'd be confuting my post. Simply saying what you said like it has anything to do with my last post is not a discussion.
If you want to contest something I said at least contest something I really said.

[Larkusix]

Sure, only I think we should differentiate between the severity of cheese. Some spells don't work as intended, nontheless, the players have accepted them as legitimate. Take for example Sunfire. Sunfire is not supposed to ignore magic resistance, but it does, due to a bug. However, Sunfire is widely accepted among players, you find it on many Sorcerer Spell Lists.

Likewise, as I pointed out in the other thread, you could make an argument, that the fact, that your Projected Image uses its own spell book, instead of using your spellbook is due to a programming oversight. However, exactly this function is, what makes Projected Image so popular. Of course this causes all kinds of balancing issues. But in my opinion, the only consistent way to deal with the problems, if you want to deal with the problems, is to reject exactly the function that is the cause of the problems, and not trying to treat the symptoms. I can only repeat myself - I know of no mod, that removed the Projected Image's own spell book and let's it use its caster's spellbook instead although that would be the only consistent solution, if you think a solution is needed.


Lark

Modifié par Larkusix, 16 septembre 2010 - 01:59 .

[Larkusix]

Modifié par Larkusix, 16 septembre 2010 - 02:56 .

[Demivrgvs]

Larkusix wrote...

@Demivrgvs
Now it's my turn to complain: Our topic is Projected Image and Spell Trap. So I am talking about Projected Image and Spell Trap and not about Chain Contingency. I thought that was clear. Chain Contingency has no bearing on this question, and to bring it up, is besides the point.

I agree, that If we want to discuss we must be fair to each other, but it takes two to tango. Now, do you agree to return to the topic?

Fair enough, though I do replied to the topic in the very same post, and quite extensively. Whereas you made me say something I didn't said,and then you replied to it, that's all I was "complaining about".

Anyway , between my post and Incantatar's definition of exploit (taken from Wiki) I think I've said almost anything I could on the Endless Spells thing.

Sunfire is not supposed to ignore magic resistance, but it does, due to a bug. However, Sunfire is widely accepted among players

Thus a bug is not a bug anymore if it's widely accepted? It's easier for most players to like a bug when it makes their life easier by granting them a more powerful spell then it was supposed to be.

Chosing the Dark Side of the Force is always easier!

What you don't seem to understand is that I have nothing against players liking exploits and using them, but let's just call them with their name (just like you correctly called Sunfire's "feature" a bug), that's all.

I know of no mod, that removed the Projected Image's own spell book and
let's it use its caster's spellbook instead although that would be the
only consistent solution, if you think a solution is needed.

That's because the game engine doesn't allow to do that (else I would have done it), it's a game code limitation.

[The Potty 1]

I agree that being able to cast 4 PI's using a chain contingency was not developer intent, and neither was using them to reload your spellbook, or summon an army of planetars. It's a bug you can exploit. Wish to reload your spells IS developer intent, so perhaps they wouldn't have minded so much. However, planetars aside, what fights in BG2 actually allow you to blow through your spellbook more than once without running out of enemies? Clearly it's easier to sleep than use this strategy, so basically we're talking Ascension or the vanilla ToB ending.

Personally I think vanilla should have allowed you to sleep, but then the only time I tried vanilla was a no-sidequest run, so I did it with a group of 3 at the lowest levels possible, and struggled a bit. I certainly would have used this if I'd known about it.

As for ascension, the only person I know of who's used a combination of spell trap, images, and wish to keep a full spell book during this fight is Alesia_BH, she admits it's an exploit, but she was soloing with a level 23 sorceror, and frankly I couldn't match that performance for a million pounds.

Perhaps if someone were to say that this strategy isn't an exploit, and they use it to beat vanilla Firkraag, then we could flame them

EDIT Sorry, I meant ONE could flame them!

Modifié par The Potty 1, 16 septembre 2010 - 02:53 .

[Humanoid_Taifun]

But Wish is made far too available in BG2, as a PnP fan should complain now.

It's not just that you can scribe it into the spell book of your epic-level mage, it basically has no draw-back. If you don't get exactly what you want you can cast it again and again without any repercussions (which a DM would probably not allow just like that).

Whatever, I'm just trying to argue against both sides.

[Larkusix]

[quote]Demivrgvs wrote...

[quote]Larkusix wrote...

@Demivrgvs
Now it's my turn to complain: Our topic is Projected Image and Spell Trap. So I am talking about Projected Image and Spell Trap and not about Chain Contingency. I thought that was clear. Chain Contingency has no bearing on this question, and to bring it up, is besides the point.

I agree, that If we want to discuss we must be fair to each other, but it takes two to tango. Now, do you agree to return to the topic?[/quote]Fair enough, though I do replied to the topic in the very same post, and quite extensively. Whereas you made me say something I didn't said,and then you replied to it, that's all I was "complaining about".[/quote]
Fair enough, though I did [insert positive claim] and you did [insert negative claim]. Anyway, let's just move on.

[quote]
[quote] Sunfire is not supposed to ignore magic resistance, but it does, due to a bug. However, Sunfire is widely accepted among players[/quote]Thus a bug is not a bug anymore if it's widely accepted?[/quote] That's not what I said. Sunfire is considered a legitimate spell, although its usefulness depends on a bug.

[quote] It's easier for most players to like a bug when it makes their life easier by granting them a more powerful spell then it was supposed to be.
Chosing the Dark Side of the Force is always easier!

What you don't seem to understand is that I have nothing against players liking exploits and using them, but let's just call them with their name (just like you correctly called Sunfire's "feature" a bug), that's all.[/quote]
Sometimes it's obvious, and sometimes it's difficult to decide which is which, as you can see from this very discussion. "one man's legitimate tactic is another man's exploit"

[quote][quote]I know of no mod, that removed the Projected Image's own spell book and
let's it use its caster's spellbook instead although that would be the
only consistent solution, if you think a solution is needed.[/quote]
That's because the game engine doesn't allow to do that (else I would have done it), it's a game code limitation.
[/quote][/quote]
Does that mean, you think, that letting your Projected Image cast spells at all, without unmemorizing them in your own spellbook is an exploit? If yes, then it is logical, that you see the Spell Trap Endless Spells Strategy as an exploit, too. I wouldn't agree with that position, but it's at least consistent.


Lark

Modifié par Larkusix, 16 septembre 2010 - 04:13 .

[Larkusix]

Modifié par Larkusix, 16 septembre 2010 - 04:14 .

[Alesia_BH]

Have fun guys!

Best,

A.

Modifié par Alesia_BH, 16 septembre 2010 - 04:12 .

[Demivrgvs]

The Potty 1 wrote...

As for ascension, the only person I know of who's used a combination of spell trap, images, and wish to keep a full spell book during this fight is Alesia_BH, she admits it's an exploit, but she was soloing with a level 23 sorceror, and frankly I couldn't match that performance for a million pounds.

Perhaps if someone were to say that this strategy isn't an exploit, and they use it to beat vanilla Firkraag, then we could flame them

This is exactly my point. Alesia seems indeed the kind of player who has no problem admitting what she does (using an exploit isn't an unforgivable sin after all), and if she used it to beat Ascension final battle on a solo run with a 23th lvl Sorcerer, I can only praise her accomplishments.

If instead "someone were to say that this strategy isn't an exploit, and they use it to beat vanilla Firkraag", I wouldn't flame him/her, but I wouldn't accept his/her claims of being a "fair player" either.

Sunfire is not supposed to ignore magic resistance, but it does, due to a bug. However, Sunfire is widely accepted among players

Thus a bug is not a bug anymore if it's widely accepted?

That's not what I said. Sunfire is considered a legitimate spell, although its usefulness depends on a bug.

That seemed what you were saying. None has ever said Sunfire is not a legitimate spell, thus you'd be confuting something which hasn't been claimed in the first place, that's why I thought you were saying that. Sorry if I misunderstood, though now I don't know what you wanted to say then...that many players like Sunfire despite or thanks to the bug? Fine, thus?

I'm not saying PI or Spell Trap is not "legitimate" (I'm not even sure what that means), but they do have some flaws in their design, and they are exploitable. If you use PI as it was intended the spell is perfectly fine, but if you start attacking with it via Shapechange you're exploiting it (it's undeniable it isn't supposed to happen, the spell's description makes it pretty clear)

Does that mean, you think, that letting your Projected Image cast spells at all, without unmemorizing them in your own spellbook is an exploit? If yes, then it is logical, that you see the Spell Trap Endless Spells Strategy as an exploit, too. I wouldn't agree with that position, but it's at least consistent.

No, even if I prefer PnP version of PI (also because of other unimplemented features) I'd never say that casting via image without unmemorizing them is an exploit, because that's how the designers wanted the spell to work withing BG. As you say yourself that "causes all kinds of balancing issues", but that's another story. The exploit is when you take advantage of designers' oversights and refresh your spellbook without limits due to combined flaws of PI and Spell Trap.

That being said, everyone is free to enjoy using exploits as much as he/she want.

Modifié par Demivrgvs, 16 septembre 2010 - 05:04 .

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Alesia_BH wrote...

Have fun guys!

Best,

A.

I'll have fun only when I want to, not when you tell me to, thank you very much.

[Alesia_BH]

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

Modifié par Alesia_BH, 16 septembre 2010 - 05:52 .

[Larkusix]

"No, even if I prefer PnP version of PI (also because of other unimplemented features) I'd never say that casting via image without unmemorizing them is an exploit, because that's how the designers wanted the spell to work within BG. As you say yourself that "causes all kinds of balancing issues", but that's another story. The exploit is when you take advantage of designers' oversights and refresh your spellbook without limits due to combined flaws of PI and Spell Trap."

I see it differently. My position is, that

- if letting your Projected Image cast spells at all without unmemorizing them in your own spellbook is no exploit, then casting them at X is no exploit either.
Whether X is Irenicus, a dragon, a kobold, a Projected Image or the caster of a Projected Image is irrelevant in my book.

- If it is no exploit to get spells back via Spell Trap at all (up to 30 spell levels, according to the spell description) , then getting them back from X is no exploit either.
Whether X is Irenicus, a dragon, a kobold, a Projected Image or the caster of a Projected Image is irrelevant in my book.

As I already explained in the other thread, I don't think, that Spell Trap has flaws, that would be relevant for this issue. Whether the spell works like its PnP counterpart is irrelevant. It seems to work  just as advertised in the spell description, absorbing up to 30 spell levels and refreshing consumed spells in the process.

I agree that everybody is free to use as much exploits as he/she wants. Of course, there are different opinions about what constitutes an exploit, so perhaps its best just to agree to disagree.


Lark

Modifié par Larkusix, 16 septembre 2010 - 07:01 .

[silenceall]

Larkusix wrote...
Sometimes it's obvious, and sometimes it's difficult to decide which is which, as you can see from this very discussion. "one man's legitimate tactic is another man's exploit"

I'm glad you liked my statement.  No one ever quotes me three or four times in a single day! 

[Larkusix]

You can't get this point across often enough.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Larkusix, the rule one seems able to draw from your post (if one thing is legal, it's legal in every context) does not work with, for example, knifes. It's legal to use those, but it's illegal to stick them into your boss when he's blocking your way to the WC.

There are a lot of things that are okay when used in a certain way, but not okay when used differently.

[Incantatar]

I still would like to hear the definition of exploit from someone who thinks casting endlessly without resting is not an exploit.



Just saying it's a matter of opinion is naive. You could rationalize the most absurd opinions with it. It still wouldn't make them less implausibel.