May 5th, 2004, 04:00 AM
|
|
|
Re: SCs other than the vq
Quote:
Originally posted by Kel:
Hehe, you added a bunch of elements which i didn't assume to make a point. Now take out all those factors that you stilted in favor of your point and let's get back to the point.
|
I didn't add anything, you left out the fact that if you failed, that is what would happen. It's easy to know what happens if a mortal pretender dies, he dies and all his junk goes with him. But by your example you don't think that is a factor at all? Just because you get to keep them, doesn't mean you always want to throw away a turn of you SC for a low to mediocre chance for success.
Quote:
|
There are many cases where immortality makes something a good choice, where it would be a bad choice without it. Again I say, taking advantage of improved risk vs. reward is the mark fo a good player, not a bad player.
|
The only example then is the one you gave me above then? Because I'm not seeing it.
Quote:
|
I think most people think that they are using logic. You might think their logic is flawed but they probably think your logic is flawed as well. Being a good player doesn't make your logic correct and everyone else's 'popular desire' or 'will-nilly' or what not. I realize that I am responding to you but let me broaden the scope...I have seen this a lot lately, from a few different people...who seemed to run out of debate on the issues and turned to debating the people who were making them.- Kel
|
Most people may be using logic. It's the same logic that they use when saying "Ermor is Overpowered" or "Pangaea is overpowered" or "Water9 Blessing is Overpowered". Being a good player allows someone to overlook some of the obvious pitfalls of still learning the game and go indepth to the various levels that the issues are presented in.
I am not debating at all, in fact, the issue was dead in another thread and long ago. I'm defending the point, which is: Those who are debating for the change have not addressed or countered the points made by those who are not for the 'balance' change. It is in the hands of the accuser to provide the burden of proof and it has not been done. Especially considering that every effect that VQ's can have can be reproduced on one if not more other pretenders spending the same if not less points to do so.
[ May 05, 2004, 03:02: Message edited by: Zen ]
|