[rabelais]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by archaeolept:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rabelais:
I think he deserves a cookie for finding a way to break the game,... (keeps the balance faithful humble ) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't repair the defect (and its derivable cousins), now that we know it exists.

Why do you do that? Is it reverse psychology? Do you maybe really NOT want it fixed?

---

what?

rabe's post seemed pretty straight-forward

---

It is straight forward, I will grant it that. But seeing it posted in every thread using words like broken and defect and fix doesnt strike me as a way of getting the devs to agree. If it were me I would think it would have an oppossite effect. But I guess life, like this game, supports many strategys. I was just trying to figure this one out.

---

Gandalf, I'm working under the presumptive principle that the devs are thoughtful, mature adults, who, understanding complex sytems as they must to have created this marvelous game, realize that not every contingency can be anticipated, which is why such systems are interesting.

IMHO the strat in its most extreme form reduces the functional and strategic diversity of the game. A game we all treasure and with which we are positively obsessed !

I suspect from KO's reaction to hearing the strat described, that this degree of monotonic leverage was not forseen by the authors and is clearly counterparadigmatic.

I may be wrong. The devs may not agree, and I suppose there is a possibility that seeing me refer to the strat as "broken" (which is a technical CCG term, but perhaps should be explained more thoroughly with each use) will cause them to toss reason to the wind and obsteperously pile on immortal SC buffs until doomsday. (Which would indeed be arriving early )

It seems unlikely to me, but if that's true then I misunderstand the devs, the game and the community.

I haven't insulted anyone, I LOVE this game.

To suggest that I am endangering balance by attempting to defend it is bizarre.

It seems vastly more disrepectful of the devs to suggest they are reactively perverse and fragile in response to constructive feedback than any contexual criticism I could make.

These are brilliant men, not cranks or emotionally stunted children.

How does taking their work seriously enough to be impassioned against its abuse count as counterproductive behavior?


Rabe the Mildly Offended

(and off to catch a plane...)