934 réponses à ce sujet

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...

Well then you admit that it is subjective. So your original point of

"The way to make it "feel" like a console port is to keep telling yourself it is, that way, when your bias is confirmed you can say I told you so."

is wrong.

No, that's just a self-fulfilling prophecy

[cmathews03]

I feel the former portion of this thread was devoted to arguing for the sake of being right. I feel the latter portion of this thread has been devoted to arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Leonia]

Winter Wraith wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

There is a scale for hardness/softness of which I am fairly sure diamonds rank the highest for hardness on. Just saying, it can be empirically measured.

Mohs scale of mineral hardness.

Thanks, somehow that doesn't help with the kitten softness debate though.

Can't ya'll go back to talking about armour or something?

[Winter Wraith]

cmathews03 wrote...

I feel the former portion of this thread was devoted to arguing for the sake of being right. I feel the latter portion of this thread has been devoted to arguing for the sake of arguing.

Welcome to the Internet.

leonia42 wrote...
Thanks, somehow that doesn't help with the kitten softness debate though.

I'm not here to answer your kitten questions I'm afraid, those you have to work out for yourself. I would suggest they're harder than talc but softer than gypsum, though.

I'm not even reading this "debate", I just happen to know what the scale is.

Modifié par Winter Wraith, 02 décembre 2010 - 05:57 .

[Atakuma]

cmathews03 wrote...

I feel the former portion of this thread was devoted to arguing for the sake of being right. I feel the latter portion of this thread has been devoted to arguing for the sake of arguing.

This pretty much sums up this entire thread

[Aermas]

When you separate visuals & mechanics you create a discrepancy in the "internal consistentcy"/realism/whatever-you-think-is-the-proper-term. Somehow one character is taking less damage than another when one is (visually) geared better than the other.

[Leonia]

But it's a bit misleading to call them naked isn't it? They're still wearing clothes, regardless if it looks like armour or not. It still deflects/absorbs damage.

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...

When you separate visuals & mechanics you create a discrepancy in the "internal consistentcy"/realism/whatever-you-think-is-the-proper-term. Somehow one character is taking less damage than another when one is (visually) geared better than the other.

congratulations, another--(another? i mean the same one repeated ad nosium)--argument based on an assumption

and you countered zigge's self-fulfilling prophecy argument (that whole feel soft kitty debacle) with a debate over subjective descriptions, which is just wrong

Modifié par Piecake, 02 décembre 2010 - 06:11 .

[Aermas]

leonia42 wrote...

But it's a bit misleading to call them naked isn't it? They're still wearing clothes, regardless if it looks like armour or not. It still deflects/absorbs damage.

Well, if they have no gear they could technically be called naked, & I like interesting titles. Plus with the new system it doesn't matter if you're wearing a tutu or a tasset, you're defense is the same.

[Sir JK]

Aermas... I have a question. If we assume that two persons have the same hp and are equally armoured. What does it mean if one of those persons take twice as much damage as the second person?

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

Well then you admit that it is subjective. So your original point of

"The way to make it "feel" like a console port is to keep telling yourself it is, that way, when your bias is confirmed you can say I told you so."

is wrong.

In your analogy, you're saying that my intention is to say that I can call any position bias and therefor claim the contrary, which is clearly nonsense.

To clarify my statement: He is attempting to convince both us and himself that it is consolised whether it is or not, in order to find himself correct in his fears, because it's more about being right than drawing conclusions and as a secondary point, he subject to confirmation bias.

In order for your analogy to really fit, you would have to not know the status of the kittens fur prior to touching (schrodinger's lesser known theory, we all start somewhere), the defintion of soft would have to be a lot more open to interpretation and you would have had to have made previous statements outlining the softness of kitten fur in the face of evidence to the contrary and/or general ambiguity.

I appreciate I'm implying that he's wrong, because I believe he is, but nothing in that statement suggests a definite result, positive or negative, merely that if he wants to see all the bad, he will see all the bad.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 02 décembre 2010 - 06:21 .

[Aermas]

Sir JK wrote...

Aermas... I have a question. If we assume that two persons have the same hp and are equally armoured. What does it mean if one of those persons take twice as much damage as the second person?

Armored as in visually, or armored as in gear?

[Sir JK]

Aermas wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Aermas... I have a question. If we assume that two persons have the same hp and are equally armoured. What does it mean if one of those persons take twice as much damage as the second person?

Armored as in visually, or armored as in gear?

Both, for all intents and purposes there is no difference between person 1 and 2

[Aermas]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Well then you admit that it is subjective. So your original point of

"The way to make it "feel" like a console port is to keep telling yourself it is, that way, when your bias is confirmed you can say I told you so."

is wrong.

In your analogy, you're saying that my intention is to say that I can call any position bias and therefor claim the contrary, which is clearly nonsense.

To clarify my statement: He is attempting to convince both us and himself that it is consolised whether it is or not, in order to find himself correct in his fears, because it's more about being right than drawing conclusions and as a secondary point, he subject to confirmation bias.

In order for your analogy to really fit, you would have to not know the status of the kittens fur prior to touching (schrodinger's lesser known theory, we all start somewhere), the defintion of soft would have to be a lot more open to interpretation and you would have had to have made previous statements outlining the softness of kitten fur in the face of evidence to the contrary and/or general ambiguity.

I appreciate I'm implying that he's wrong, because I believe he is, but nothing in that statement suggests a definite result, positive or negative, merely that if he wants to see all the bad, he will see all the bad.

I didn't have a problem with your point of view, I had a problem with the way you worded your point.

[Aermas]

Sir JK wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Aermas... I have a question. If we assume that two persons have the same hp and are equally armoured. What does it mean if one of those persons take twice as much damage as the second person?

Armored as in visually, or armored as in gear?

Both, for all intents and purposes there is no difference between person 1 and 2

Then it was a critical blow. Or something similar to a critical blow that the mechanics allow.

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

When you separate visuals & mechanics you create a discrepancy in the "internal consistentcy"/realism/whatever-you-think-is-the-proper-term. Somehow one character is taking less damage than another when one is (visually) geared better than the other.

If you attack someone with a sword at level one and where then to hit the same, exact thing again at level 20 you would do more damage. You have increased statistically which is the analogy for: you have gotten better at it.

If your defense statistic goes up, as in: you have gotten better at defending yourself, should it not lead to taking less damage? And if that's the case, unless "defense" as a numerical factor is tied exclusively to armour (which I think you'll agree isn't realistic), then the game will always be open to the effect you mention above, whether or not you feel they are appropriately clothed.

[Sir JK]

Aermas wrote...
Then it was a critical blow. Or something similar to a critical blow that the mechanics allow.

So you acknowledge that within the system you can have different individuals being hit differently and it's still consistent. Why is this suddenly impossible with different levels of armour? Why can't Isabela not be hit as bad as Aveline was? Why can't people score critical hits on Aveline but fail to do so in Isabela? What so inoncistent about that?

[Aermas]

 Because with your theory Isabela will always be hit lighter, & a visually armred character will always be hit harder

[Aermas]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

When you separate visuals & mechanics you create a discrepancy in the "internal consistentcy"/realism/whatever-you-think-is-the-proper-term. Somehow one character is taking less damage than another when one is (visually) geared better than the other.

If you attack someone with a sword at level one and where then to hit the same, exact thing again at level 20 you would do more damage. You have increased statistically which is the analogy for: you have gotten better at it.

If your defense statistic goes up, as in: you have gotten better at defending yourself, should it not lead to taking less damage? And if that's the case, unless "defense" as a numerical factor is tied exclusively to armour (which I think you'll agree isn't realistic), then the game will always be open to the effect you mention above, whether or not you feel they are appropriately clothed.

The discrepancy is that visually unarmored people are taking the same damage as visually armored people

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

The discrepancy is that visually unarmored people are taking the same damage as visually armored people

Riiiiight, and if the one in armour has low defense and the one in cloth has high?

[Aermas]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

The discrepancy is that visually unarmored people are taking the same damage as visually armored people

Riiiiight, and if the one in armour has low defense and the one in cloth has high?

Can you restate that I can't tell what you mean

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

Can you restate that I can't tell what you mean

For the sake of this example, the numbers are random and I'm simplifying the effect of defense.

Isabella is wearing a fetching blouse and no trousers. She's a practiced duelist and used to defending herself. Her armour rating is 5 and her defense rating is 50

Bob the warrior is wearing his bodywieght in plate, but he's never actually seen combat. His armour rating is 50 and his defense rating is 5.

If they both take the same damage from the same hit, one could say that Isabella is better at actively mitigating the blow, by parrying or moving, making it glancing by controlling the angle or similar, while Bob is taking the full load, but is protected by the metal, but in actuality it's an abstraction of the whole combat process, from swing to damage, and not just a single step in the process - determining damage once the blow has connected.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 02 décembre 2010 - 06:56 .

[AlanC9]

Aermas wrote...

Well, if they have no gear they could technically be called naked, & I like interesting titles

Anyone else noticed that we've seen a lot of this sort of thing lately? Poster puts up something that he doesn't actually mean because it sounds more important than what he does actually mean, someone calls him on it, and the thread degenerates. The behavior seems to be associated with the DA2 skeptics. I guess because they really want to have their points noticed.

The strange part is that anyone who's paying attention knows that this not only doesn't work on Bio staff, it's counterproductive. Even I can't match Gaider when he's in full contempt mode, which is all the response that this kind of rhetoric gets you.

[Matchy Pointy]

My goal in here was to restute the problem of not wearing pants, so for me I think it seems like a succes. As for having an argument online where in people actually listens to and takes in the arguments on the others, I think that one is a myth.

[fsjalasdf]

[Content removed.]

Modifié par Pacifien, 02 décembre 2010 - 08:54 .