Jump to content
Report a V1.0 Bug!

Edit History

Please note that revisions older than 365 days are pruned and will no longer show here
theFlu

theFlu

28 minutes ago, meganoth said:

So we should simply say that "arms race" is the derogatory equivalent of "balancing"?

It's not perfect, as balancing can happen without an adversary. But it's close enough for me. You calling people idiots is entirely up to you.

 

Upper hand, would be both sides trying to. The pairing was TFP vs players, not players vs zombies. TFP want the zombies to lose in particular ways, but not in others - that's game dev, yes. Their end of the arms race is making the game function as they deem correct, not killing player characters. How convoluted are we going to get here?

 

28 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Again, are you sure, TFP knows about this?

 

If their AI testing doesn't include a simple moat, I can't help them. Besides, I'd rather argue about whether on not an example of a thing works as an example of a thing on the forums than file pointless bug reports.

 

The other force field options; the devs have made some vague reference to knowing about them, but I don't care enough for a fix to a thing I'm not using to waste my time on it. Neither do they, it seems.

 

You're trying to argue the merits of a "fix" without understanding what it changed, or how the "acceptable" alternative to it functions. That's ... a first amendment right, sure. But not much beyond that.

 

28 minutes ago, meganoth said:

You can whitewash anything with that language.

Yeah, I'm good at calling out irrelevant claims. Thanks :)

 

28 minutes ago, meganoth said:

After that there was nothing creative about the overpowered arrow slit anymore.

So... "creative", in the sense of "when players get creative, TFP reacts"? So, now the arms race can only apply to something that is constantly being changed by players? What are you even arguing by now?

 

EDITing to add:

 

28 minutes ago, meganoth said:

It's use also made everything else in the horde night game trivial and non-creative.

Again, exactly the same as a ditch.

 

30 minutes ago, meganoth said:

"Feature"? Nonsense

Sure, but it was a bit tongue-in-cheek; reference to "it's a feature!". Sometimes it even applies.

theFlu

theFlu

14 minutes ago, meganoth said:

So we should simply say that "arms race" is the derogatory equivalent of "balancing"?

It's not perfect, as balancing can happen without an adversary. But it's close enough for me. You calling people idiots is entirely up to you.

 

Upper hand, would be both sides trying to. The pairing was TFP vs players, not players vs zombies. TFP want the zombies to lose in particular ways, but not in others - that's game dev, yes. Their end of the arms race is making the game function as they deem correct, not killing player characters. How convoluted are we going to get here?

 

2 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Again, are you sure, TFP knows about this?

 

If their AI testing doesn't include a simple moat, I can't help them. Besides, I'd rather argue about whether on not an example of a thing works as an example of a thing on the forums than file pointless bug reports.

 

The other force field options; the devs have made some vague reference to knowing about them, but I don't care enough for a fix to a thing I'm not using to waste my time on it. Neither do they, it seems.

 

You're trying to argue the merits of a "fix" without understanding what it changed, or how the "acceptable" alternative to it functions. That's ... a first amendment right, sure. But not much beyond that.

 

9 minutes ago, meganoth said:

You can whitewash anything with that language.

Yeah, I'm good at calling out irrelevant claims. Thanks :)

 

10 minutes ago, meganoth said:

After that there was nothing creative about the overpowered arrow slit anymore.

So... "creative", in the sense of "when players get creative, TFP reacts"? So, now the arms race can only apply to something that is constantly being changed by players? What are you even arguing by now?

×
×
  • Create New...