Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 9012541" data-attributes="member: 5889">With respect, I made corrections to that argument once my errors were presented to me. Your right that I would have used that as a basis for my argument, but that was not valid, so I dropped it in favor of the other arguments I had been presenting.That's not going around in circles, that is actually having an open mind and listening to those who debate me.As for realism and gamist concerns, yes I'm using the arguments together....because I think they fit together. To me that's why its a win/win. The gamist in me knows that 600 foot range encounters are horrible to run, and just plain unfun. So reducing the risk that anyone would run such a thing is a win. The realist in me knows that 600 foot bow ranges for shooting a moving target are so hilariously wrong that reducing it would create better immersion (of course to what level depends on people's preferences). Using both of these arguments isn't a form of "flip flop" its adding ammunition to my case by presenting arguments that appeal to different areas of the game people care about. That is just good debate.</blockquote>