|
Post by Chaosblade on Jul 19, 2008 0:40:40 GMT -5
How about this, You can revive a hero, but all abilitys it gained by projects are gone (Like what VGS did with Queen bean).
|
|
|
Post by rydon7 on Jul 19, 2008 9:05:48 GMT -5
That's how it's supposed to work, but Water Dumple is arguing saying that you should only be able to revive once.
|
|
Merloo
SMKW God of the Wars
Posts: 5,486
|
Post by Merloo on Jul 19, 2008 10:16:20 GMT -5
Which is my problem. I don't think it should work like that. The one reviving thing.
|
|
Water Dumple
SMKW God of the Wars
Expert Debater
Whatever do you mean, Commander Pierce?! Anglo military intelligence is second to none! Fire!
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Water Dumple on Jul 19, 2008 11:16:08 GMT -5
And what about this game gives the slightest hint that death is permanent? Nothing at all. Characters frequently deal with reviving the dead, and other various things. It doesn't apply, to me, because I'm talking mechanics while you seem to be going off on a more flowery direction. "Nothing is permanent...death is merely a change," doesn't go into the mechanics I'm talking about, and what I'm trying to communicate is that if you're allowed to just bring everybody who dies back to life, it is far more difficult to destroy a group than it probably should be, or than it was before people started doing it. See above. "Good" is also quite relative, and therefore holds little/no value. We didn't get rid of them because the problem was you exploiting a part of the rules that wasn't specific enough, and everybody else seemed to think it was obvious that you couldn't have more than one UWM or make parts for another. The problem with the machine was more rulebreaking than anything else. How many times do I have to say it? I don't want it utterly and completely gone (Actually, I do, but I'm suggesting something else), but I think that it should only be usable once and any extra abilities/equipment owned will go with it. Not to make an assumption, but it definitely seems that you're so opposed to limiting resurrection because you do it so much.
|
|
Merloo
SMKW God of the Wars
Posts: 5,486
|
Post by Merloo on Jul 19, 2008 11:37:34 GMT -5
I never once revived anyone. I needed to, but I never did it. First wars, nothing happened. Second wars, same case. Third wars, I gave up. Fourth wars, don't need to yet.
Especially as I have plans for magical and other types of copies of a sort. Consciousness transfers to them when the original dies. Or something like that. I forget what the original idea was.
1. I am a flowery person. If you don't know that by now, then you aren't paying attention. As well, it doesn't invalidate the point. You should be capable of realizing what I mean.
As well, it isn't any more difficult to kill a revived blank slate than it is to kill a new blank slate. Explain why it's necessary to prevent reviving if both ways are identical in all cases, except one of them allows for more happiness, which is the goal of the game.
2. Very well then. You have not explained in detail fine enough why preventing reviving will have any impact on the true functions of this game. As well, you have not explained in enough detail why reviving is supposed to be removed, even when reviving or getting a new Hero is identical in all ways, same goes for Generals, Captains, and Messengers, if abilities are not brought back as well. Further more, you have not explained well enough why it is important to limit said reviving to just a one-time thing, when it does nothing more than satisfy some weird idea you have that it makes characters effectively immortal, even when anyone can tell that isn't the case, as the character loses everything upon being revived without special restrictions, and as such is identical, again, to any character you can gain normally, without the added benefit of being a character the player necessarily wants.
3. Rules are not stated as such at the time. As well, others did it, on lesser scales.
Regardless, that is not my point. Is what I did an inherent flaw in UWM's, or, is it a problem with the rules around the UWM, and not the idea itself? I believe it is the latter, and that is the same case with reviving.
4. I pointed this out above. I'm not going into it again.
In conclusion, you need to read more, and pay more attention. If you did, you'd at the very, very least, see that I have not, and have never, revived up to this point, which is questionable as to why you think I did. I have never relied on it, and I doubt I will. It's a lot safer to just never have anyone die.
|
|
Water Dumple
SMKW God of the Wars
Expert Debater
Whatever do you mean, Commander Pierce?! Anglo military intelligence is second to none! Fire!
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Water Dumple on Jul 19, 2008 12:26:31 GMT -5
I never once revived anyone. I needed to, but I never did it. First wars, nothing happened. Second wars, same case. Third wars, I gave up. Fourth wars, don't need to yet.
Backup plans, however, you've always seemed to have had. What I meant was that you always had some method in reserve for reviving somebody or something. NOVA, for example.
Especially as I have plans for magical and other types of copies of a sort. Consciousness transfers to them when the original dies. Or something like that. I forget what the original idea was.
Wow, I really called that one, didn't I.
1. I am a flowery person. If you don't know that by now, then you aren't paying attention. As well, it doesn't invalidate the point. You should be capable of realizing what I mean.
Yes, it does invalidate your point, because the fact that you believe that death is merely a change and that nothing is permanent does not and should not affect how things work in the game. I'm talking mechanics, you apparently aren't.
As well, it isn't any more difficult to kill a revived blank slate than it is to kill a new blank slate. Explain why it's necessary to prevent reviving if both ways are identical in all cases, except one of them allows for more happiness, which is the goal of the game.
What do you mean by a "Blank slate"? Complete reviving shouldn't be allowed because it makes all the effort put into killing someone useless. And then they can probably just do it again and again, because a limit hasn't been set on it. For the...I believe, fourth time, it makes it too difficult to kill a group if they can just revive with all of their abilities and equipment. It destroys the point of even trying to kill them, unless you wanted some form of loot.
2. Very well then. You have not explained in detail fine enough why preventing reviving will have any impact on the true functions of this game. As well, you have not explained in enough detail why reviving is supposed to be removed, even when reviving or getting a new Hero is identical in all ways, same goes for Generals, Captains, and Messengers, if abilities are not brought back as well.
Because if you have a backup plan for reviving, it is done instantly, and therefore ruins the point. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if it wasn't so blatantly difficult to kill heroes.
Further more, you have not explained well enough why it is important to limit said reviving to just a one-time thing, when it does nothing more than satisfy some weird idea you have that it makes characters effectively immortal, even when anyone can tell that isn't the case, as the character loses everything upon being revived without special restrictions, and as such is identical, again, to any character you can gain normally, without the added benefit of being a character the player necessarily wants.
Yet it doesn't seem that folks will always revive killed heroes with none of their abilities/equipment. If that's always how it was, and there wasn't the possibility of it happening otherwise, I'd be fine. And if you're going to bring up the point that somebody can be brought back just as easily, then perhaps I should bring up another argument that you shouldn't be able to replace them at all.
3. Rules are not stated as such at the time. As well, others did it, on lesser scales.
The fact that others did it in no way absolves you from what you did. That's a Faulty Appeal to the people fallacy. And if the rules were horribly specific about everything, it would dampen certain areas of creativity and make it very difficult for us to get new members because people would be daunted by the size of the rules. Not gonna happen.
Regardless, that is not my point. Is what I did an inherent flaw in UWM's, or, is it a problem with the rules around the UWM, and not the idea itself? I believe it is the latter, and that is the same case with reviving.
Here we have an Either/Or fallacy. There are not only two options for this. I think it was simply you exploiting the rules not being specific enough (And that specification wasn't there for the above reasons).
In conclusion, you need to read more, and pay more attention.
Really, I need to? That's interesting. Not to mention utterly relative. I do not have the time, nor am I that devoid of life to hunt through pages of posts (Which would be even more difficult to do this for you because you didn't record logs in the logbook library for a long time) just to find out the exact events happening in the wars, even moreso just to find a specific fact in an argument I don't really care about very much, against somebody whose ideas are already in the minority. Instead, I made a connotation about both actual reviving and also backup plans, rather than just the former.
If you did, you'd at the very, very least, see that I have not, and have never, revived up to this point, which is questionable as to why you think I did.
You apparently got the wrong implication from what I said, then. See above. The reason I think you did is because many people, and I've seen you do this as well, are more defensive of things that they don't want to change. For example, you were highly opposed to putting a limit on artifacts, and I don't think it was a coincidence that you were the biggest user of them.
I have never relied on it, and I doubt I will. It's a lot safer to just never have anyone die.
Because it's definitely a choice whether somebody dies or not, and has nothing to do with the moderators writing the battles you're involved in, or your opponent's plans, numbers, and situation. You just set them to "Let die" or "Don't let die".
|
|
Merloo
SMKW God of the Wars
Posts: 5,486
|
Post by Merloo on Jul 19, 2008 12:55:33 GMT -5
1. And everyone has backup plans. NOVA once originally planned for that, as it was supposed to you all parts, not some. Plus, that was the only case, due to the rule change. Otherwise, nothing.
2. I only came up with that when you said you wanted to try and eliminate reviving, which technically it isn't reviving.
3. I am talking in a way that applies to life and mechanics. Mario series has plenty of revivals.
4. Blank slate is a blank slate. Or if you prefer more interesting words, Tabula Rasa. A revived person who has nothing is no different than a new person with nothing. Which is what normal reviving should have.
5. And Heroes should be tough to kill. They are meant to be. And just because it's capable to revive doesn't mean instantly. It depends on the method, and for instant reviving, it's typically only of use with robotic entities, not so much magical and other forms. Those shouldn't be done instantly, and with robotic entities, you have to constantly update.
6. Problem with users, not with idea. And I could care less what idea you think works well, you haven't proved how it helps with the fun of the game, which is, and always, always will be, the point of these games. Rules should not impede people from having fun.
7. Why should I feel the need to be be absolved for something that wasn't illegal at the time? I feel no guilt, and I see no reason why I should. It was perfectly legal. And you, talking about dampening creativity? I find that ironic, in a manner.
8. Just because something is a fallacy sometimes doesn't make it one all the time. What you said still falls under one of the categories I listed, so what I said still stands. Fallacies only work if the logic behind them is inherently flawed, or at least stated as such. Casually throwing out fallacy statements because they fit the standard definition doesn't take into account the extenuating circumstances.
9. I know what happens with everyone in these Wars at the moment, and I spend less time on here than you do.
In conclusion, you need to read more, and pay more attention. And my ideas are in the minority? I disagree highly. I don't see people crowding around to agree with you on a number of things, especially in this case of reviving. The only time I've had the majority against me, and that is the key word, as the upper class here is not the majority, is in the NOVA case. As such, you are wrong, in multiple aspects, if you think that.
As well, you too have backup plans, don't you? When you go to battle, surely you have plans for when the enemy manages to do something surprising and you luckily managed to take it into consideration. Those too are backup plans, and I think you would be hard pressed to find someone on these boards that hasn't used backup plans.
10. Backup Plans aren't reviving. And actually, I tried to push a limit on Artifacts. Remember? I made a nice idea, about how Artifacts should have various levels, charge up times, and in general make it so that even Uber Artifacts aren't overpowered, because they need to build up energy. So, again, wrong. I am against anything that limits creativity, not against anything that can make the rules more safe. But if I have to choose between the two, my side is clear.
11. I have plans already in motion. None of your concern, of course. But they'll be fine.
|
|
Water Dumple
SMKW God of the Wars
Expert Debater
Whatever do you mean, Commander Pierce?! Anglo military intelligence is second to none! Fire!
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Water Dumple on Jul 19, 2008 14:16:09 GMT -5
1. And everyone has backup plans. NOVA once originally planned for that, as it was supposed to you all parts, not some. Plus, that was the only case, due to the rule change. Otherwise, nothing."NOVA once originally planned for that, as it was supposed to you all parts, not some." Something is missing there; I don't know what, but I'm pretty sure it's coherency. You ought to reword that. Also, to your first sentence, I can firmly say that I have never had backup plans for my uber war machine/champions' demises. Not everyone has backup plans. Also, to your third sentence, what rule change was that? Only being able to have one uber war machine was established a good while before NOVA. 2. I only came up with that when you said you wanted to try and eliminate reviving, which technically it isn't reviving.From another perspective, one could say that it is reviving (And I do) because you're essentially bringing back the essence of the dead character. It's just a different form. 3. I am talking in a way that applies to life and mechanics. Mario series has plenty of revivals.For the third/fourth/fifth time, because people are revived in the Mario series has no relevance to the game, because the game isn't completely canon. Quit spamming that concept. Also, saying that death is only a change and that nothing is permanent doesn't have much if anything to do with the game; what matters with the game is the rules (mechanics), and that doesn't have to do with the rules. 4. Blank slate is a blank slate. Or if you prefer more interesting words, Tabula Rasa. A revived person who has nothing is no different than a new person with nothing. Which is what normal reviving should have.Yes, and that's what I'm trying to get passed. I want it to be made so that you cannot revive somebody with all of their abilities, and if it's going to be done instantly, only once to keep things fair and losses aren't recovered from immediately. 5. And Heroes should be tough to kill. They are meant to be. And just because it's capable to revive doesn't mean instantly. It depends on the method, and for instant reviving, it's typically only of use with robotic entities, not so much magical and other forms. Those shouldn't be done instantly, and with robotic entities, you have to constantly update.Heroes should be tough to kill, but they're too tough to kill. goombajaws.proboards99.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2414I made an effort to get that changed, and we'll see if it takes effect. Yes, I know that something capable of revival might not be instant, that's not what I'm arguing about. What I'm trying to get passed is that nobody should be able to revive instantly. Also, why would you have to "Constantly update" with a robotic revival? That's fairly random. 6. Problem with users, not with idea. And I could care less what idea you think works well, you haven't proved how it helps with the fun of the game, which is, and always, always will be, the point of these games. Rules should not impede people from having fun.Problem with users, eh? So if there were no rules against god-modding and I then made a one-day project to destroy the entire universe, it would be entirely my fault, and not at all of the rules for allowing something like that to go ahead and happen? Also, it is impossible to prove either viewpoint because it's all relative. But, hey, if I have fun by doing that, why bother making a rule against god-modding? It would impede my fun, and that would just be horrible because my fun definitely goes above the mechanics and balance of the game. P.S. Wrong phrase. If you say "Could care less," it means the exact opposite of the intended communication, which is "Couldn't care less". Think about it. 7. Why should I feel the need to be be absolved for something that wasn't illegal at the time? I feel no guilt, and I see no reason why I should. It was perfectly legal. And you, talking about dampening creativity? I find that ironic, in a manner.It was illegal; we had a rule that only one uber war machine could be made at a time. Your fallacy remains--The actions of others don't justify your actions. Additionally, if you find it ironic that I phrase dampening creativity in a negative manner, it doesn't matter because I can still speak truth--Or, not exactly truth in this case, but something that members can agree with--Even if my militaristic attitude makes it appear that I want to dampen creativity. It actually isn't that way, I'm simply trying to keep things fair.8. Just because something is a fallacy sometimes doesn't make it one all the time. What you said still falls under one of the categories I listed, so what I said still stands. Fallacies only work if the logic behind them is inherently flawed, or at least stated as such. Casually throwing out fallacy statements because they fit the standard definition doesn't take into account the extenuating circumstances.You said, is it a flaw in UWMs or a flaw in the rules around them? I said it's you exploiting something that was unclear, which isn't under either category--And I've been over why we can't be utterly, completely clear and specific on every bit of the rules. 9. I know what happens with everyone in these Wars at the moment, and I spend less time on here than you do.This does not mean that I need to. I spend my time writing my tech sections, not keeping an eye on others. This is why I had a 50 kb tech section in the last version. It makes it easier for god-mod claims to go elsewhere if I'm specific, and I'd rather write than look through a bunch of lists. In conclusion, you need to read more, and pay more attention.You just said this. I'll let the rebuttal in my last post handle it. And my ideas are in the minority? I disagree highly. I don't see people crowding around to agree with you on a number of things, especially in this case of reviving.They don't need to swarm. All I need to be in the majority is to have one person agree with having some form of limit on reviving, and that has happened in this topic. The only time I've had the majority against me, and that is the key word, as the upper class here is not the majority, is in the NOVA case. As such, you are wrong, in multiple aspects, if you think that.Oh, I can recall another off of the top of my head: Lowering the troop cap/gain. You were in the majority for a while, and then that shifted against you. As well, you too have backup plans, don't you? When you go to battle, surely you have plans for when the enemy manages to do something surprising and you luckily managed to take it into consideration. Those too are backup plans, and I think you would be hard pressed to find someone on these boards that hasn't used backup plans.Equivocal fallacy, or a form of one, anyway. The form of backup plans I was using was a plan in case something was destroyed, having some way of reviving it. The backup plans you are now talking about are "In case X happens in a battle, I will do Y". 10. Backup Plans aren't reviving. And actually, I tried to push a limit on Artifacts. Remember? I made a nice idea, about how Artifacts should have various levels, charge up times, and in general make it so that even Uber Artifacts aren't overpowered, because they need to build up energy. So, again, wrong.My limit was on the number you could have. Yours was more of an expansion of power. You ought to stop saying "You're wrong," as well, it gets old and looks rather immature because I have no difficulty in replying to these each time. I am against anything that limits creativity, not against anything that can make the rules more safe. But if I have to choose between the two, my side is clear.If we made the rules utterly, completely airtight, as I've already mentioned, it would be too deep and difficult for new members to join. As a result, it hasn't happened. 11. I have plans already in motion. None of your concern, of course. But they'll be fine.While you can certainly plan things in a way that will reduce the risk of death or destruction of something, you cannot see enemy plans and as such, cannot prepare for absolutely anything. If you can prepare for everything, it would be god-modding. Now, with that, I am through arguing. I've been over the same issues many times, here, and you seem to really be scraping for answers because a lot if not most of your replies contain a form of "You're wrong" at the end. If you're really that desperate for the last word, feel free to go ahead and argue with this post, but you'll be wasting your time because I'm not going to bother writing another essay post back.
|
|
Merloo
SMKW God of the Wars
Posts: 5,486
|
Post by Merloo on Jul 19, 2008 14:38:37 GMT -5
1. And that's not what I said. I said backup plans. And it was the 200 day rule.
2. Technically, not. And I use technicalities when I deal with stubborn people.
3. And people are revived in the Wars, so it is relevant to the games.
3. I am talking in a way that applies to life and mechanics. Mario series has plenty of revivals.
4. You're also trying to make it so that you can only revive once, my issue.
5. No, you made an effort to get troops more attention. That should have no effect on Heroes, except for screen time. You have to update the copy so it's up to date. Outdated data is still useful, but not as much as up to date data, and as such it needs to be updated.
6. And that impedes others fun. If one persons fun is being impeded, but others are not, then the minority doesn't get to have their way. You are in the minority, and as such, revival should stay, as it does not negatively impact the game. As well, words matter little. It is the intent that matters, and you know fully well what my intent is.
7. And it was one UWM. And if others are able to do something, yet others can't, then that obviously means that the rules aren't as absolute as it should be. And you can keep things fair and have creativity. It simply requires trust in others.
8. Rules around them. As I see it, my statement still stands.
9. That's nice. It's not my fault, or the fault of anyone else, that you don't choose to read others lists.
9. I know what happens with everyone in these Wars at the moment, and I spend less time on here than you do.
10. Majority is one person? Weird, I always figured majority would be at least 51%. And you want to limit reviving more than what anyone has agreed to.
11. It matters not. That wasn't a situation where people were actively against me, just against the idea I supported.
12. You said backup plan, and I supplied. Be more specific or else you'll have these arguments dragged down to pointless squabbling over nonsense.
13. Expansion of power? It was a limit of it. They'd have normal power in these wars at their peak, but otherwise would be weaker. I don't see how it's an expansion.
14. We shouldn't have to. You should quit worrying so much, and just have fun. When something is a clear and blatant threat to fun, then worry. Nothing we've encountered in SMKW's is like that so far.
15. I can, but in ways that work because they are a whole, as a group, and not alone. As well as other special plans.
16. Well, I read from top to bottom while responding, so it's too late now. As well, I see no reason why I shouldn't respond. One of the worst, if not the worst, thing is to not say what is on your mind and in your heart. As such, I always respond, even if it's a losing battle, until the very end. Short of ban, I don't stop. Unless I don't have time, but I'll post when I can.
|
|
|
Post by layze on Jul 21, 2008 11:44:49 GMT -5
TAKE IT INTO FUCKING PMS
I'm sick and tired of merloo never letting up on an argument he's already lost, and even more so that said arguments are clogging up our boards. I don't care if this is the argument board, this is ridiculous.
EDIT: also, merloo, you're not paying attention. when you revive a hero, they're still a hero. they don't lose the hero status. the fact that you don't even pay full attention to the arguing makes it even worse.
|
|
Merloo
SMKW God of the Wars
Posts: 5,486
|
Post by Merloo on Jul 21, 2008 11:53:16 GMT -5
Layze, the argument is done. I had not lost said argument any more than WD, and just because Heroes come back with the status doesn't mean they come back with all the abilities attached to the character, which is what WD didn't like. That is what we were arguing about, not whether or not reviving means the Hero gets Hero status.
|
|
|
Post by layze on Jul 21, 2008 12:29:56 GMT -5
the argument is clearly not done, as you got the last word.
|
|
|
Post by rydon7 on Jul 21, 2008 12:49:01 GMT -5
TAKE IT INTO FUC KING PMS I'm sick and tired of merloo never letting up on an argument he's already lost, and even more so that said arguments are clogging up our boards. I don't care if this is the argument board, this is ridiculous. EDIT: also, merloo, you're not paying attention. when you revive a hero, they're still a hero. they don't lose the hero status. the fact that you don't even pay full attention to the arguing makes it even worse. You mean clogging up a topic you don't even have to read?
|
|
|
Post by layze on Jul 21, 2008 12:56:50 GMT -5
getting rid of merloo would simultaneously solve almost every problem the wars have ever had.
|
|
Water Dumple
SMKW God of the Wars
Expert Debater
Whatever do you mean, Commander Pierce?! Anglo military intelligence is second to none! Fire!
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Water Dumple on Jul 21, 2008 12:58:53 GMT -5
TAKE IT INTO FUC KING PMS I'm sick and tired of merloo never letting up on an argument he's already lost, and even more so that said arguments are clogging up our boards. I don't care if this is the argument board, this is ridiculous. EDIT: also, merloo, you're not paying attention. when you revive a hero, they're still a hero. they don't lose the hero status. the fact that you don't even pay full attention to the arguing makes it even worse. You mean clogging up a topic you don't even have to read? In a board that rarely ever gets topics now and someone like you could just as easily never see it? Also, layze, if you even read, you'd see that I let him get the last word. As if it's some kind of competition.
|
|