211 réponses à ce sujet

[Heals.like.Jesus]

SheffSteel wrote...

I've already used game lore to rationalise why magic affects potions but not heal spells. The same rationale explains why target magic does not increase the damage taken from attack spells, or the effect received from any other spell for that matter. It is a question of who produces the magical effect.

The game lore you used to rationalise what you say, can be used by just about anyone who wants to make sport of bending and twisting vestiges of what lore says into what you need for an argument.

Thus you do not use lore, you translate it into what is convinient for you to be lore. Game creators did not put whatever backstory about magic there is with the question of potions being integrated into it, you make stuff up, mix it with vaguely related game history and call that an argument.

You can use/bend/twist lore to rationalise whatever you damn please,  even if its outright bull5hit, so your argument holds no real weight.

[addiction21]

In all honesty the thing that bothers me the most is poultices are not drank like a potion. I think the effectivness should be reduced 50% for improper usage regardless of magic skill, height, weight, skin tone, hair length, if you had eggs for breakfest, and race.

Course its late, I am rambling off topic, and should be heading to bed or to the waffle hut...

[wanderon]

Heals.like.Jesus wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

I've already used game lore to rationalise why magic affects potions but not heal spells. The same rationale explains why target magic does not increase the damage taken from attack spells, or the effect received from any other spell for that matter. It is a question of who produces the magical effect.

The game lore you used to rationalise what you say, can be used by just about anyone who wants to make sport of bending and twisting vestiges of what lore says into what you need for an argument.

Thus you do not use lore, you translate it into what is convinient for you to be lore. Game creators did not put whatever backstory about magic there is with the question of potions being integrated into it, you make stuff up, mix it with vaguely related game history and call that an argument.

You can use/bend/twist lore to rationalise whatever you damn please,  even if its outright bull5hit, so your argument holds no real weight.

Holds no weight compared to exactly what?

[Dark83]

Bibdy wrote...

Tell me why healing potions shouldn't scale with a main stat for Warriors and Rogues.

Why should it? There are already tons of complaints about healing potions making things too easy.
Pots aren't on shared cooldowns, so you can easily drink multiple ones and go from 1 health to 500 in a few seconds.

[Pauldarian]

HERBAL

[Heals.like.Jesus]

wanderon wrote...

Heals.like.Jesus wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

I've already used game lore to rationalise why magic affects potions but not heal spells. The same rationale explains why target magic does not increase the damage taken from attack spells, or the effect received from any other spell for that matter. It is a question of who produces the magical effect.

The game lore you used to rationalise what you say, can be used by just about anyone who wants to make sport of bending and twisting vestiges of what lore says into what you need for an argument.

Thus you do not use lore, you translate it into what is convinient for you to be lore. Game creators did not put whatever backstory about magic there is with the question of potions being integrated into it, you make stuff up, mix it with vaguely related game history and call that an argument.

You can use/bend/twist lore to rationalise whatever you damn please,  even if its outright bull5hit, so your argument holds no real weight.

Holds no weight compared to exactly what?

Compared to the other stuff said, which was not derived from a conviniently twisted "game lore" to suit one's own need for an argument.

And way  to ingore an entire post just to bite down at one sentence.

Modifié par Heals.like.Jesus, 17 décembre 2009 - 07:50 .

[SheffSteel]

I have put forward a consistent in-universe (note that I'm no longer using the L-word) explanation of the observed behaviour of potions and all spells.

What was the game design argument in favour of making potions more powerful for Warriors and Rogues? "They have more hitpoints, so they need more healing." Is that it, or is there a better one? That is, a better argument that's consistent with an in-universe explanation of potions and magic.

Side note: I'm no longer using the word Lore because, as has been noted and I've agreed, Lore can be used to justify many things. Seen cynically, Lore is the collective excuses of the designers for how the game works. As such, it's not a terribly good benchmark. Consistency and logical plausibility are better.

Modifié par SheffSteel, 17 décembre 2009 - 07:59 .

[Heals.like.Jesus]

SheffSteel wrote...

What was the game design argument in favour of making potions more powerful for Warriors and Rogues? "They have more hitpoints, so they need more healing." Is that it, or is there a better one? That is, a better argument that's consistent with an in-universe explanation of potions and magic.
.

How about an argument consistent with logic: health potions restore fixed amount for everybody

or

A healthier body can make a better use and better ingest the healing qualities from a medicine made of herbs. (I.E. Con-based)

Modifié par Heals.like.Jesus, 17 décembre 2009 - 08:07 .

[wanderon]

Heals.like.Jesus wrote...

wanderon wrote...

Heals.like.Jesus wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

I've already used game lore to rationalise why magic affects potions but not heal spells. The same rationale explains why target magic does not increase the damage taken from attack spells, or the effect received from any other spell for that matter. It is a question of who produces the magical effect.

The game lore you used to rationalise what you say, can be used by just about anyone who wants to make sport of bending and twisting vestiges of what lore says into what you need for an argument.

Thus you do not use lore, you translate it into what is convinient for you to be lore. Game creators did not put whatever backstory about magic there is with the question of potions being integrated into it, you make stuff up, mix it with vaguely related game history and call that an argument.

You can use/bend/twist lore to rationalise whatever you damn please,  even if its outright bull5hit, so your argument holds no real weight.

Holds no weight compared to exactly what?

Compared to the other stuff said, which was not derived from a conviniently twisted "game lore" to suit one's own need for an argument.

And way  to ingore an entire post just to bite down at one sentence.

Oh it holds no weight compared to other stuff - excellent reply -

I didn't ignore the rest of the post - I read it and understood where you were coming from (didn't agree but understood none the less) but I did not know what other "more weighty" stuff you were refering to when you labeled the lore explanation as carrying no weight.

Come to think of it I still don't since you didn't deem it important enough to include some examples of what you considered more weighty in your reply to my question.

Care to try again?

[Heals.like.Jesus]

You have 6 pages of "weighty stuff" to sift through. Filter the "lore"-based posts out and you got it.



There are plenty of arguments back there and I will not parrot myself because you dont bother reading.

[wanderon]

Heals.like.Jesus wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

What was the game design argument in favour of making potions more powerful for Warriors and Rogues? "They have more hitpoints, so they need more healing." Is that it, or is there a better one? That is, a better argument that's consistent with an in-universe explanation of potions and magic.
.

How about an argument consistent with logic: health potions restore fixed amount for everybody

or

A healthier body can make a better use and better ingest the healing qualities from a medicine made of herbs. (I.E. Con-based)

How is this more logical than the current attributte it is tied to? Clearly a potion that can heal wounds instantly is producing a magical effect regardless of whether or not magic was used in it's preparation and it's not a matter of the body actually digesting and processing the potion as would be the case if the overall health of the body was going to add to the effect.

[wanderon]

Heals.like.Jesus wrote...

You have 6 pages of "weighty stuff" to sift through. Filter the "lore"-based posts out and you got it.

There are plenty of arguments back there and I will not parrot myself because you dont bother reading.

So then ALL other arguments are more weighty than anything based on the actual game lore or the way the game universe is designed to work?

Is that just arguments that you have presented yourself or does that also include every other argument that anyone has contributed to the thread?

Perhaps you are having some second thoughts about just how weighty your arguments (and those of other posters) might be compared to lore arguments if you choose not to summarize them for us perhaps in order of weightiness?

[Heals.like.Jesus]

You seem to thrive on nitpicking at other people's posts and expend a good deal of effort to make them look pointless, pick words apart, while you contribute nothing to the topic.

Borderline trolling?

Modifié par Heals.like.Jesus, 17 décembre 2009 - 08:30 .

[Bibdy]

wanderon wrote...

And I want to keep the devs working towards making more content for the game rather than endlessly changing the manner in which the game works to satisfy the whims of every gamer in the universe who wants to see it work differently.

It's not about crushing anything or anyone it's about voicing your own opinions about the topics being posted and if there is an overwhleming attitude being displayed on these forums it's certainly not from those of us who are quite happy with the way the game works now it's from WOW style screamers - the fix this fix that this game is broken and if we just yell loud enough we will get a patch to change it  folks.

I am not a builder but I suspect the main reason a toolset was included with this game was so that all the folks who wanted to mold it to thier own vision would have the tools to do so and would not have to insist that the devs changed the game for everyone to suit their needs.

Wow, you're pretty crap at discussions. Nice over the top strawman attack there.

You're completely overreacting at a discussion about game mechanics. Just because people want to discuss it, doesn't mean they instantly think its utterly broken, nor does discussing it imply they're screaming at the top of their lungs to get it changed. Were discussing it. This is a forum isn't it? Without discussions about the game, what exactly is the point of having them?

[wanderon]

Heals.like.Jesus wrote...

You seem to thrive on nitpicking at other people's posts and expend a good deal of effort to make them look pointless, pick words apart, while you contribute nothing to the topic.

Borderline trolling?

How is voicing my opinion that I do not in fact find the fact that a 300 hp warr heals 50 with a potion whereas a 150 hp mage heals 112 with the same to be hilarious or that I happen to disagree with the bulk of the posts that find the mechanic stupid, broken, or otherwise incompetent game design not contributing to the topic?

Or is it only considered to be contributing if you agree with the dissenting opinion?

When people post on an internet gaming forum - their posts become fair game for others to question or comment on - if that bothers you I'm sorry - but thats the way it works.

It's called discussion - you say something about something and I am free to say what I think not only about the something in general but about what I think about what you said about it.

[wanderon]

Bibdy wrote...

wanderon wrote...

And I want to keep the devs working towards making more content for the game rather than endlessly changing the manner in which the game works to satisfy the whims of every gamer in the universe who wants to see it work differently.

It's not about crushing anything or anyone it's about voicing your own opinions about the topics being posted and if there is an overwhleming attitude being displayed on these forums it's certainly not from those of us who are quite happy with the way the game works now it's from WOW style screamers - the fix this fix that this game is broken and if we just yell loud enough we will get a patch to change it  folks.

I am not a builder but I suspect the main reason a toolset was included with this game was so that all the folks who wanted to mold it to thier own vision would have the tools to do so and would not have to insist that the devs changed the game for everyone to suit their needs.

Wow, you're pretty crap at discussions. Nice over the top strawman attack there.

You're completely overreacting at a discussion about game mechanics. Just because people want to discuss it, doesn't mean they instantly think its utterly broken, nor does discussing it imply they're screaming at the top of their lungs to get it changed. Were discussing it. This is a forum isn't it? Without discussions about the game, what exactly is the point of having them?

Pretty crap at discussions??? What does that mean?



Discussion is consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate.  Someone posts a topic in which they ask a question or make a statement and others contribute by asking their own questions or making their own statements about the topic or the questions or statements that other have made.

What part of that am I failing at? Yes we are discussing game mechanics. The bulk of the posts appear to dislike this particular mechanic and appear to wish it were different while others think it is fine. I am posting my opinion on the mechanic as well as on the statements others have made about it. What part of that process on my part makes me "pretty crap at discussion" ?

[Bibdy]

No, actually you and I, weren't not discussing game mechanics. I'm discussing game mechanics, you're discussing my right and legitimacy to discuss them with yourself.

So if all you can bring to the dicussion is "You're not allowed to discuss things because that would mean changing the game in a fashion I don't like, and the current system is clearly perfect, therefore there's no need to discuss them", there's not really much else I can discuss with you.

Modifié par Bibdy, 17 décembre 2009 - 09:09 .

[wanderon]

Bibdy wrote...

No, actually you and I, weren't not discussing game mechanics. I'm discussing game mechanics, you're discussing my right and legitimacy to discuss them with yourself.

Umm double negative there - weren't not  discussing means in fact we were discussing - which is actually true but I'm pretty sure thats not what you meant to say.

I'm not sure where you are getting the whole bit of how I'm discussing your right to and legitiamcy to participate in the discussion of this mechanic just becuase I disagree with your stance and have posted reasons why I disagree tho.

Unless you are saying that my arguments are too strong and you have no choice but to abandon your previous position in light of my remarkable insight into the issue...

[Bibdy]

wanderon wrote...

Umm double negative there - weren't not  discussing means in fact we were discussing - which is actually true but I'm pretty sure thats not what you meant to say.

I'm not sure where you are getting the whole bit of how I'm discussing your right to and legitiamcy to participate in the discussion of this mechanic just becuase I disagree with your stance and have posted reasons why I disagree tho.

Unless you are saying that my arguments are too strong and you have no choice but to abandon your previous position in light of my remarkable insight into the issue...

Ah, resorting to jumping on typos and claiming victory, now. classy.

No, all of your arguments stem from the above. "The game is fine, I don't like your ideas, or this discussion. The game was built this way. It was intended. So why argue with it? I don't want it to turn into WoW where people crying on the forums get their way all the time, its a single player game, its a party-based game, blah blah blah".

What exactly is there for me to discuss with that? I know its a single player game. I know its a party-based game. I know the system is intended. Thankyou Captain Obvious? Should we just go back and forth where I say your opinion is wrong and you say my opinion is wrong because my opinion doesn't agree with your opinion, while we both neglect to actually discuss the mechanics? Or we continue what's happening now where I talk about an improvement and you say you don't like it and that's that?

You genuinely haven't given me a single thing to discuss with you, because all of your arguments are generated from "Its fine, lern2play".

Modifié par Bibdy, 17 décembre 2009 - 09:28 .

[wanderon]

Bibdy wrote...

wanderon wrote...

Umm double negative there - weren't not  discussing means in fact we were discussing - which is actually true but I'm pretty sure thats not what you meant to say.

I'm not sure where you are getting the whole bit of how I'm discussing your right to and legitiamcy to participate in the discussion of this mechanic just becuase I disagree with your stance and have posted reasons why I disagree tho.

Unless you are saying that my arguments are too strong and you have no choice but to abandon your previous position in light of my remarkable insight into the issue...

Ah, resorting to jumping on typos and claiming victory, now. classy.

No, all of your arguments stem from the above. "The game is fine, I don't like your ideas, or this discussion. The game was built this way. It was intended. So why argue with it? I don't want it to turn into WoW where people crying on the forums get their way all the time, its a single player game, its a party-based game, blah blah blah".

What exactly is there for me to discuss with that? I know its a single player game. I know its a party-based game. I know the system is intended. Thankyou Captain Obvious? Should we just go back and forth where I say your opinion is wrong and you say my opinion is wrong because my opinion doesn't agree with your opinion, while we both neglect to actually discuss the mechanics? Or we continue what's happening now where I talk about an improvement and you say you don't like it and that's that?

You genuinely haven't given me a single thing to discuss with you, because all of your arguments are generated from "Its fine, lern2play".

Actually I never use l33t speak myself so the whole lern2play is all in your head someplace - in fact I suggested that if you or anyone else would like to make changes in the way this mechanic works there is in fact a toolset where I believe this can be done so I am not actually saying the mechanic will be broken if you change it I'm just saying I don't want to clutter up the devs desk with changing it becuase IMO it doesn't need improvement or change.

As for you talking about an improvement well that all depends on where you stand on whether or not the mechanic needs improving doesn't it?

as for the whole my reasoning blah blah blah leaves you nothing to discuss is that why you have turned from discussing the topic to discussing how you dislike my posting? 

Here's the deal - quit quoting me and baiting me to reply and I'll quit replying...

[Bibdy]

Well, gee maybe I was under the vain hope that you might stop with the silliness and give me something to work with. Alas.

[wanderon]

Bibdy wrote...

Well, gee maybe I was under the vain hope that you might stop with the silliness and give me something to work with. Alas.

As was I...

[Bibdy]

Well in that case, would you like to answer the question I've already posed twice, which is "Give me a reason why health potions shouldn't scale for Warriors and Rogues" that does NOT include "Because its intended"?

[skotie]

adam_nox wrote...

I find it sad how many bad game apologists there are on this forum. A potion is not magical. It's alchemical. it's made with ingredients. It doesn't make sense for it to heal more or less on someone. It never has in any other game I've played either.

Define how a potion that magically knits your flesh back together isn't in fact magical, the fact other games do not treat these types of things as such is irrevelent, the fact is in the game world (specifically this game) its a magical sustance by the very nature of what it does, clearly healing flesh faster then any herbal remedy would ever be able to, no I don't care that its made with Alchemical ingrediants, obviously the ingrediants contain magical properties to acomplish what the potion does.

Last time I checked the doctor didn't have any potions I could take to immediately to cure my wounds after a gun shot, just because they decided to make a function in a game work more like it should doesn't mean the system is wrong.

Modifié par skotie, 18 décembre 2009 - 12:37 .

[skotie]

Double post my apologies.

Modifié par skotie, 18 décembre 2009 - 12:26 .