Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 7974336" data-attributes="member: 18">You're putting words into my mouth and then demanding I "prove" them? Please do not do that.I said they're overpowered. Not "broken". I don't use those terms interchangeably. Those are two different things, at least by degree. Hence people often saying "broken overpowered" when describing stuff in computer games, to mean something isn't merely problematic (like a gun that does 10-15% more damage than other guns), it actually breaks the game (like a gun with infinite ammo, or a gun that does 100% more damage). I don't know if anything here "breaks the game", but there's certainly "overpoweredness" in the sense of stuff that's clearly better than typical options.What is "it" in the subject of this sentence anyway?I'm leery of going into deep examples, because in my experience, people who've demanded such things tend to do one of two things when they are provided:1) Walk away from the thread and never comment on it again (let alone acknowledging the often significant time and effort that goes into providing the examples and accompanying math).2) Dismiss the examples with terms like "white room" (necessarily any example on a messageboard will be vulnerable to this, just as examples from real games are vulnerable to the issue that the player may be holding back or not very mechanically adept), or with very weak arguments (c.f. the "well you can kill the echo pretty easily stuff", where in fact the resources being used to kill the echo are potentially pretty huge - forcing an enemy to make a pointless attack is like having Stunning them for a turn).I'm not saying "I refuse", I'd just like you to acknowledge that these are valid concerns. I've seen too many times when people (not always me) have provided detailed examples which have simply been ignored or dismissed unreasonably.As for Healing Spirit being fixed "easily", maybe, but not everything can be fixed that easily.I also note your original wording re: "bet" that they are balanced - have you actually looked at them? You haven't answered on that. I'm certainly not going to bother with this until you have looked at them (including all the spells).No. If you think that's a requirement to seeing that something is obviously overpowered, then, I'm afraid I don't think agree and I don't think that's a reasonable position, and I've been vindicated in this viewpoint so many times in my lifetime that it's not even funny. Some flaws only emerge in actual play. Many others are obvious even without it. In my long experience, here, in video games, wargames, card games, and RPGs, It's far more often the case that something seems fine on paper, and is broken in practice, than vice-versa.Some people will always claim that "Well in my game it's fine!", no matter how unbalanced or badly-designed something is. That's a fact, and it's something anyone who has discussed RPGs significantly will have seen. The interesting thing is that it's often true - but the reason it's typically is that the player is either restraining themselves voluntarily, or isn't capable of understanding how to leverage what the ability in question is. The perfect example is LF/QW, which people swear blind isn't an issue in their games, and again, I'm sure that's true, but as a point of the rules design, it is a problem.The spells in particular are frequently better than other spells of the same level (not all of them), to a degree that says not "This wasn't tested at all", but rather seems like clear power creep, which to me undermines any suggestion of rigour.</blockquote>

Verification