Articulate Vlish Finch Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Hi everyone ! after using a shaper with a battle magic build and siding with the rebels; I can't decide what class I'd like to pick now any suggestions guys? I wanted to pick guardian, however I've heard the class is bugged? I'd like to try sorceress, but I don't know what kind of build i should give her, so any suggestions or tips would be Greatly appreciated Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Strategy Central has some good information, so look around there. The Guardian starts off with a bunch of extra essence (which is probably a bug) but gains less essence from leveling up, which means you're better off using the Warrior instead. Dikiyoba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 The consensus is that the guardian shouldn't have as much essence as it does but that it's a design error, not a bug. And since the warrior has more essence through most of the game anyway, it's not even a particularly significant bug. —Alorael, who will go ahead and say that no class has any flaws substantial enough to render it unplayable. All of them work as they should. Some of them may be harder to play than others, but that depends mostly on how you like to play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice ex post slarto Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Alorael is like Wikipedia. Has things to say about everything, is generally wonderful, and has a good reputation for good reason, but he occasionally pops out a fact that does not just need a citation, but which is in fact totally untrue. This is one of those times. There is substantial, uncontradicted evidence (which I have previously posted at length) that the guardian essence boost is in fact a bug. There is definitely NOT a consensus that it is a "design error." It isn't. It's a bug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Oh? My understanding was that Jeff left the extra essence in the guardian from G4, when it was an NPC-only class and got extra essence to use in battles with the PC. —Alorael, who should clarify that he'd only accept it as a bug if the guardian was coded to have no essence boost and the essence boost happened because of flaws in the code. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Articulate Vlish Finch Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 Thats the conclusion I came too as well, but then he did fix the shaper and agent class... why not the guardian? do you think he'll fix it? I like the look of guardian sprites more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice ex post slarto Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Sorry if my reaction was overly strong; I remembered you arguing that the essence boost was intentional in the past. That said, how is it a "bug" if it's a problem in compiled code but a "design error" just because the number in question happens to be in a text file? Geneforge 4 treats ancillary acid damage as magic damage (I think; I forget the exact type) for purposes of resistance. That's definitely a bug. But it's still (presumably) just a wrong number in a line of code somewhere. I would imagine "design error" to describe, say, the boats in Geneforge 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 To me a "bug" requires something not working right. I suppose that opens the door to disagreement, but the wrong damage is clearly something not working right. The damage is not functioning as it should. The guardian was programmed a certain way for a previous game and then not reverted. It works as was once intended, but that intent no longer exists. —Alorael, who concedes that he'd call it a bug if guardians started with 200 essence. His choice of words still mostly reflects the fact that he can see the guardian's boosted essence as a possible deliberate choice even if it isn't one. 200 essence would break the game. 20 doesn't do much of anything past the very beginning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Originally Posted By: Salable truth, not salacity To me a "bug" requires something not working right. I suppose that opens the door to disagreement, but the wrong damage is clearly something not working right. The damage is not functioning as it should. The guardian was programmed a certain way for a previous game and then not reverted. It works as was once intended, but that intent no longer exists. It was programmed in that way at a point when it was an NPC-only character, though. A PC using stats intended for an NPC is a bug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 But only if those stats are inappropriate for a PC, which in this case they aren't really. —Alorael, who thinks the litmus test is whether or not anyone would know it was a bug if the warrior class weren't so different and prior history didn't make it questionable. It would be odd, certainly, but everyone would shrug and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice ex post slarto Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 The litmus test for being a bug is people knowing it is a bug? Care to get a little more circular, Alo? Moreover, you're saying that if it jumps out at people it's a bug, and if it doesn't it's a design error? That makes no sense whatsoever. Especially considering that you have said the G4 acid damage problem is a bug, but that bug went 100% unnoticed for over a year after release, and probably never would have been found had I not done some really anal damage reduction testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I think Alorael's argument is that a bug is only a bug if it behaved incorrectly at the time it was originally coded. If it behaved correctly at first and behaved incorrectly at a later date, then it's something other than a bug. This argument still doesn't hold water, though: lots of bugs arise due to unexpected interactions between new and old code, even if neither bit of code is incorrect in itself. A bug is any undesired behaviour that wasn't considered at the time it was coded in, pretty much. If I knew that coding something in a certain way would produce an undesired behaviour and did it that way anyway, then it would be a design error rather than a bug. Look at Y2K bugs, for example: let's say that I'm a computer programmer in 1985. If it simply doesn't occur to me that a piece of code will exhibit undesired behaviour after the year 2000, then it's a bug. If I know that a piece of code might exhibit undesired behaviour after the year 2000, but don't care because I don't think the software will be used by anyone in the year 2000, then it's a design flaw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 When I said, "to me," I was explaining why I'm not calling it a bug even though objectively it's a program misbehaving. It's from code doing what it was intended to do when first written and continuing to do just that. Its effects are not subtle or obfuscated, like acid damage. They are not an obvious error when noticed, like acid damage or Y2K. The behavior of the guardian's essence may be undesired, but it isn't really undesirable. That could make it a "good bug" or "neutral bug." I suppose those are better terms than "design flaw," since it isn't designed at all. Or perhaps it is a lack of redesign flaw. —Alorael, who must concede the point because this argument has now become stupid. Yes, it's a bug because it meets the definitions of a bug. It just doesn't feel sufficiently buggy. There is no unexpected code interaction. The cause of the problem is lack of attention paid to version changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chittering Clawbug fractalnavel Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Speaking from a software development perspective, there's that (in)famous phrase: "it's not a bug, it's a feature!". The difference is often merely one of whether documentation is present. Ultimately, "bugs" _are_ contextual, regardless of the source of the phenomenon. If the context includes an independently well-established practice or fact, e.g., a mathematical formula, then the corresponding increase in rigor will have the effect of making the "bug" judgement seem objective (leading to another conclusion: that "objectivity" can be contextual as well, if only because the term is often abused). In this case, however, the source of "authority" is far more limited and subjective: the author of the game, its players, the general gaming world, and the computing world, in order of more or less increasing distance from the project. There are other contextual references present, of course. Y2k: perhaps it's the _calendar_ that was the bug - seriously. But the context - calendars and their users have far more widespread distribution and history than software - drives the "solution" in the other direction. Or the "bug" could be the perceived requirement for consistency. Again, that's a well-established practice, so of course, it takes precedence. And so on. I can give you a counter-example where the software takes precedence: when the actual practice of an insitution or fulflllment of contractual obligation is embodied in software, it is often deemed to be the de facto "correct" method, overriding written documents. When there's a discrepancy, the "bug" label depends on one's motivations. So, given the limited context of this current debate, things are kind of circular: the outcome of the debate relies upon - the outcome of the debate. Informed by other more distant contextual cues, of course. In a less abstract sense, note that a "design error/flaw" is _still_ a "bug", albeit of a different sort. Even _intentional_ behavior can be a bug. So what you folks are really seem enmeshed in is an exercise in semantics, which is fine, assuming some actual distinction independent of the language is present. As in: does a "bug" label imply a "fix" is needed / desired ? Is a fix needed (or not) _independent_ of the label ? Perhaps the bottom line in this context has to do with the ultimate outcome of this debate in terms of action: _will_ anything be changed, and can this result be impacted by this discussion ? In other words, will the creator of the game be motivated by the merits of this argument one way or the other to change something ? I think the general consensus is "no". The game phenomenon under discussion is seen as acceptable, if perhaps odd & idiosyncratic. So, not "bug", in this sense. Was the effect unintentional ? Seems to have been originally ("bug" in that sense), but certainly noticed later and allowed to remain (not "bug" in _that_ sense). Finally, keep in mind that the term "bug" has emotional, often perjorative, content as well. Does this discussion still exist if emotionally loaded terms are removed ? Probably not; no one seems to have disagreed on the specific application of the terms "error" or "flaw". At this level, the discussion seems to be one of defending the game somewhat against a sensed slight on the one hand, and a discussion of a less charged label application in the other. Or perhaps _I_ am the bug in this discussion. Certainly a noisy fly-on-the-wall. Thanks for the opportunity to play _my_ game ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgeoning Battle Gamma Ganduv Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Wow, the topics sure jumped along on this thread Anyway so as not to post an unnecessary post, could the guardian essence bug be fixed in the scripts manually? Or is it in the actual coding of the game or whatever they call it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice ex post slarto Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Originally Posted By: fractalnavel So what you folks are really seem enmeshed in is an exercise in semantics... _will_ anything be changed, and can this result be impacted by this discussion... I think the general consensus is "no"... Does this discussion still exist if emotionally loaded terms are removed ? Probably not. Welcome to Spiderweb, eh? Let's just replace the boards with the above paragraph in a text file and save everybody a load of bandwidth. OK, time to disappear again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Originally Posted By: Ganduv Anyway so as not to post an unnecessary post, could the guardian essence bug be fixed in the scripts manually? Or is it in the actual coding of the game or whatever they call it. Yes, but since the bug gives the Guardian more essence, there's not much point in it. Dikiyoba thinks the real lesson to be learned here is that the player should be able to choose the PC's class and graphics separately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrulous Glaahk Lord Iraelithe Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 If the guardian has more essense then stop arguing, whether it a bug or...whatever Alorael called it...Be happy. USE the advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Read the beginning of the thread again. The guardian starts with more essence and then falls behind the warrior in a few levels. It's not an advantage so much as it's the slight amelioration of a disadvantage. —Alorael, who denies any semantic hairsplitting in the above post. Well, okay, of course it depends on how you define hairs, semantics, and splitting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Originally Posted By: fractalnavel I can give you a counter-example where the software takes precedence: when the actual practice of an insitution or fulflllment of contractual obligation is embodied in software, it is often deemed to be the de facto "correct" method, overriding written documents. When there's a discrepancy, the "bug" label depends on one's motivations. If you're into sociology at all, check out a guy called Brian Wynne. You'll like him, I think; he talks about exactly this sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chittering Clawbug fractalnavel Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 This Brian Wynne ? http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/faculty/profiles/Brian-Wynne/Sociology/ Interesting body of work, from a (necessarily) cursory glance. It wasn't immediately apparent where he addressed the issue under discussion directly, although it was pretty clear it would be covered somewhere. Do you have a particular reference handy ? The "program as contract" concept always seemed to me far better than lifeless legalese: want to know the resolution of a conflict ? Just "execute" the law. Then again, I developed this perspective after a number of years of effectively translating regulatory and contractual obligations into software as part of my job then. Wow, talk about over-simplification ;-) Note that this was merely an extension of historical practice into software. The priority of operational definitions of "agreement" over documented but perhaps differently acted upon ones has a long legal tradition. Squatters "rights" would probably be the most straightforward example. Topic relevance: I think this is a third-order tangent. I lost count. But surely we're still far behind the record. Is this remark a yet higher order tangent ? Invoking a hall-of-mirrors effect seems unfair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Originally Posted By: fractalnavel This Brian Wynne ? http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/faculty/profiles/Brian-Wynne/Sociology/ Interesting body of work, from a (necessarily) cursory glance. It wasn't immediately apparent where he addressed the issue under discussion directly, although it was pretty clear it would be covered somewhere. Do you have a particular refence handy ? That's the one, yeah. I'll see if I still have my reference list from last year somewhere. Basically one of his main contentions is that the actual rules of practice followed in technological systems bear little relation to the formal rules set by internal and external regulators, and the formal rules (which almost everyone in the organisation tacitly expects operators to ignore) are mostly used as a way to blame operator error when things go wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chittering Clawbug fractalnavel Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 What's funny (odd) to me is that in the last few days, I've run into related sets of organizational behavior concepts in three very different places under different circumstances: here, an OLPC related post(http://gregdek.livejournal.com/53038.html), and in the book "Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight" [2005] (http://u.nu/75vn, pdf, 8 parts). I seem to be caught in some sort of external digital feedback loop. Deja deja vu, as it were. (All right, I know better, but subjective selective attention bias is so much less fun.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Spddin Ignis Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 But all the shaper characters were NPC...so shouldnt shapers and agents have the same "bug"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 No. Not all of them had their essence inflated. The guardian had so little that presumably Jeff added more just to let the poor guy cast some spells or summons some critters. —Alorael, who can only guess. Maybe Jeff fixed the other two and just forgot the guardian. He's easily overlooked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Articulate Vlish Finch Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 lol wow I go away for a few days and come back My little thread I started has earned a gold star for discussion Is It still possible to play as a guardian and beat the game? thats the basis of my question that I was wondering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Spddin Ignis Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 yeah. its possible to play as anything as beat the game. Ive played as a gueardian a few times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.