Azthor

Activity: - Forums: daily, at least twice a day, - Game: near daily, activity across the day dependent upon personal availability and the ongoing events. Role: Archivist. If that seems awfully vague, that is because it is so, and I have no current role. I am bidding my time in settling for something definitive, though not for the lack of having something in mind. Interests and activities: a few, though there is no particular focus on any given activity yet.

2 GC 5 SC.

I've used "Touch of God - Regeneration Ritual" twice for the purpose of testing, arriving at the same prompt as TheRichMerchant, barring the last part, which is exclusive to the free ritual. On both occasions, not a single one of my damaged creatures was healed. With each ritual allegedly healing 16 creatures, in my case, at least, that should confirm it isn't a matter of undamaged creatures being chosen at random instead of the wounded ones.

Related: http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15552-regenerational-ritual-of-youth/#entry157029 http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15688-lesser-regeneration-ritual/

2 GC on St. Peter.

I'd also like to bid on every other creature, 1 SC over the current bid.

If all creatures other than those specified were to lose Freeze and Antifreeze, drachorn and angien rituals would nevertheless maintain their current advantage in that they are left more slots to use those other creatures now bearing Freeze and Antifreeze in. That might make for a relatively low-impact method of placing Freeze and Antifreeze within the initiative roster. Drachorns may gain a somewhat greater advantage from those modifications than the angiens, however, and, barring those occasions were the battle would end before the first turn is complete, rituals would still be pidgeonholed into maintaining creatures with Freeze or Antifreeze to remain competitive.

1 GC on each of the angiens.

1 GC on St. Peter.

The public demo account has been set as Metal Bunny's adept for a while now.

My opinion, which, I dare say, might be shared by some others, is that, being in a unique position to consider further developments from a coding perspective, you do whatever you feel would be best in the long run (...) mainly considering the opinion of those few others in a similar position. I would like to be of help here, but "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" (...) I am honestly at loss as to what I might suggest that might be of use, as I lack the perspective of the no doubt many conditions attached, and likewise lack the background knowledge to understand such easily.

Respective contexts taken in account, I do not disagree. Similarly, properly contextualized, powle's own post is not mutually exclusive to Marvolo's. Marvolo speaks of dealing with others. powle speaks of the community's share of failure. I do a little of both. You speak of pursuing a role. But those messages, which can form a cohese whole as such, are superficially contradictory in spirit, for we have simultaneously advised that he both ignore and consider the opinion of others, in different instances. For, indeed, while it would fall within what I have argued that Dark Demon learn to tell when a given input is well-intended or malicious, to wholly ignore any input falls very far from what I had suggested. "If others dislike what you are doing, ignore them and keep doing it.. as long as your actions come from you and who you truly are" "I am asking you to control yourself because you cannot expect of society to embrace you as you are, with no restraints. None of us can"

I will say this sooner rather than later: aiming at the more blatant examples, reader, please read Marvolo's post and my own, then powle's and Aillith's. Now tell me we aren't being even slightly contradictory.

Dark Demon, when I spoke of being mindful of the impact of your actions upon others (...) No one is actually trying to give you genuinely useful feedback in that post. He is hardly skilled at conveying it, no offense intended, but he seems to be trying, nevertheless. "All my future suggestions will be emailed to Council and never posted on the forums for discussion so that they are not misinterpreted" is an statement can, itself, be easily mistaken for passive-aggressiveness, context taken apart. Negative repping that post will have the likely effect of discouraging him from doing so in the future, the same as you'd probably have received his own post better had he not previously negative repped you. It is, of course, not that you are forced to do so, but rather, that there are benefits in doing so.

I will have an order placed and read it once I am done with Zettel. As it seems to have been heavily edited through the decades, would you suggest the 26th edition or an older one?

@dst: make that half a decade ago, rather than a few years ago. It is my view, at least, that you seem have gradually polished your stance into a more socially acceptable form from that point onward. It could, in a sense, be exactly what you speak of - it is a matter of personal restraint, after all. I'd say you are more agreeable now than then. As for your last statement, I do not question or doubt that.

This is entirely unrelated to Rophs' post: Nimrodel, have you read any of Georges Canguilhem's translated works, specially The Normal and the Pathological? If so, I am interested as to how you'd relate; otherwise, take it as a suggestion.

DD, you have been quite polite with me thus far. Read this with time to spare. Are you at fault alone? I quite doubt it, that things have gone this far speaks much of the social ineptitude of most of the involved. But you are to blame for their reaction, nevertheless. Is that statement unfair? Maybe so, but the all-embracing, tolerant society you are looking for doesn't exist. Not here, not anywhere. And you would not, yourself, be a member of said society. Individuals have their limitations. Sooner or later one will offend another. And then you are left the choice of taking it in a stride and or swearing bloody murder. You can be good company, but you don't react well to stress. When someone offends you, you will swear bloody murder at every chance. But it is a bit of a vicious circle, you see? You have been offended before, and your reaction inspired public dislike. With that, other parties start to see you in a negative light, and soon enough you are dealing with a large amount of offensive remarks whom your only reply to is to draw yet more negative attention. I am not asking you to control your own reactions because you are solely responsible for this entire ordeal. To be frank, many got involved in those discussions because they find some form of entertainment in participating from a position where their own emotional integrity isn't at stake. I am asking you to control yourself because you cannot expect of society to embrace you as you are, with no restraints. None of us can. dst, herself, got a lot of flak (unusually so, that is) some years ago, and I, at least, perceive her public dealings to have changed somewhat as a consequence thereof. I like to believe she can guess at what specific timeline I refer to, though it is unlikely to be a consequence of that event alone, and she is free to deny that, as it is a somewhat superficial impression. And don't tell me those individuals criticizing could never have been your friends in the first place. I am sure you recognize you recognize the relevance of first impressions. Point in case, speaking of "ignoring your flaws" (and you should ask for respect, not ignorance): many of us who had remained silent as you announced your intentions with the Labyrinth did so as to grant you the benefit of doubt. What is that but to respect your flaws, even as we had reason to be skeptical? Pointing at the flaws of others won't help you live better with them, and most of them aren't about to leave. Or rather, one should understand that to change others one must be at least somewhat respected by them. And that requires first changing oneself. Changing yourself is nor good nor bad, in and of itself, but the kind of public attention you receive, and the way you cope with it, are certainly an ill-begotten combination. You've personally never wronged me. If you'd strive to act as such with others, that is a step in the right direction, if not more so. Most of all, understand that, often, there is more self-respect in restraining yourself, tactfully in your own favor, than to react rashly at any would be opposition.

Happy birthday, both of you!

I've edited the opening post again for clarification. The actual suggestion (I) relates to Wind Dragons and GG drachorns Creature Boosting each other, but not themselves. There has been no suggestion thus far for a Creature Boost interaction between Wind Dragons and the premium drachorns. Auras are a worthwhile consideration, but, in that particular regard, Freezes would have to be first discussed in-depth, so that a recently buffed Wind Dragon ritual does not then become much more powerful than a Reindrach or Goldrust ritual whose Freeze and Antifreezes have been nerfed shortly after. If Freeze and Antifreeze are unchanged, the idea is for the Wind Dragons and GG drachorn's overall boost to outmatch that of the premium drachorns, though performing worse against high defense values, and lacking the very important Freeze and Antifreeze auras. There, indeed, any aura that achieves a similar effect, by debuffing the opponent's creatures or buffing your creature's initiative, both as you suggested, would be doable.

Tentative summary: I - Reduce the chance of Freezing, with each cumulative Freeze in a ritual having less chance of firing off (Chewett's suggestion, seemingly supported by Burns, lashtal and DD). II - Reduce the chance of Freezing, subordinating it to the source creature's type (Tal's suggestion with demonstrative percentages. Similar suggestion by EE with specific percentages). III - Reduce the chance of Freezing, then subordinating it to the amount of creatures of a given type in the ritual (No one's suggestion). III' - Apply similarly to Antifreeze. Have Antifreeze also give the providing creature a chance of outright resisting Freezing. III'' - Freeze and Antifreeze should be based on the initiative order of each creature, not on their ID. IV - Freeze and Antifreeze percentages clash each round, with creatures freezing and unfreezing during combat. Specifics pending (No one's alternative suggestion). I am particularly fond of IV, though I believe balancing it according to the availability of Freeze and Antifreeze in a ritual, without, even more so than now, rendering creatures without either useless, would require a baseline bias towards creatures remaining unfrozen, rather than frozen. Please, inform me if I've misunderstood any of the ideas above. @Ary Endleg: I have at last updated all of the threads.

Based on Tal's tests (http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15733-unit-limits-angiens-drachorns-archers/) and those uses inherent to life stealers, in spite of their damage potential (...) While the excessive compounding of other abilities on top of Target: All has been agreed by some to be an issue, would it be agreed, currently, that Target: All - as a base template - might be maintained without significant loss to the overall balance between those creatures often used as the backbone of a ritual, their different advantages taken in consideration? All opening posts have been updated.

There has been some expression, in this thread (Ary Endleg) and in the original (Burns) for Wind Dragons and GG drachorns to Creature Boost each other. Though there has been no expression to the contrary, the scarce volume of input does not allow for a true consensus, even as the current consensus remains unanimous. On these grounds, I'd like to urge others to make statements, whether favorable or the contrary, on the proposed changes, particularly Tal, who seems to have done some measure of testing with a GG drachorn and two Wind Dragons. All opening posts have been updated.

Rophs' input is a good reference for what was intended, whereas Burns' would indicate that pursuing to restore the feature to what was intended may be a moot attempt - double so if we refer to what was intended during what was a development stage for the abilities themselves. In hindsight, I do recall heretic archers having an easier time stacking weaken defense when I first started playing than they do now, though I had dismissed it as inattention. More specifically, though I may be mistaken, I believe weaken defense acted more akin to damage to the opponent creature's defense, going well into the negatives, and remaining indefinitely, without the need for it to be reapplied during combat. There is something of a consensus here, though I believe it exists only through the lack of additional input. Those points listed in favor of weaken defense's current function were added by me so that there was room for discussion - no third party had suggested it in the original thread. Here, again, I would like to urge forth participation from those players who have yet to voice themselves - and, among those that have already voiced themselves indirectly, request Burns' own opinion on the matter. In tandem, I will pose the following as an open inquiry: does anyone know what has become of http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/13089-combat-bug-or-newbies-lack-of-knowledge/, if it would affect the present discussion to any extent, without incurring into unsanctioned spoilers? All opening posts have been updated.

Given how all the arguments seem to base themselves on auxiliary discussions, the following question stands: what is achieved by reducing the maximum number of drachorns in a ritual, likewise reducing the maximum number of angiens and archers? It does not seem to be the case - going by Tal's numbers - that the respective maximum amount of creatures for each of the respective categories generates an imbalance among them. Quite the opposite, it has been argued that the reduction in their numbers would enable other rituals to compete. But, by Burns' own comment when he had first suggested the change, one might then resort to employing two drachorns, two "angiens" and two morphs. In that scenario, not only would the performance of archers suffer unnecessarily, those other creatures would remain unable to compete, regardless of whether or not they should be able to compete. That does, in turn, wholly deny the purpose of the modification, if I understand the situation properly. Of course, if it might diminish the inflow of credits, and does not achieve anything of note, then there'd be no reason to push this forward. What is the general view on the above? @Burns: your own input, as the original proponent, is of particular importance here. @dst & No one: you spoke of ability tweaks. While that probably concerns Freeze & Antifreeze, I am led to believe that also relates to other abilities. While this thread is less than ideal for an in-depth discussion on those, could you briefly develop on the other possibilities? @No one: if you would like me to address that post of yours I said I would later comment on, I will, but I will do so in private, so as to not deviate the thread. You are, of course, free to make its contents public. All opening posts have been updated.