Jump to content

GF2 - My playthrough (full of spoilers)


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, feat. Ganrick said:

Dude.  Now I call foul.

 

Alhoon, your "90% confident" line was NOT about anything about the author's intention.  You just edited your previous post to make it look like that!  Let the record show everything that came after "90% positive that" was completely different until after I wrote my post.  (I mean, there is no record, but everyone CAN see the record of you editing that post after I replied to it.)

 

I am not going to engage with someone who deliberately edits their comments after they have been replied to, then claims the people replying were wrong about what you said.

 

 

Ahh... what?

Are you serious now or joking? Do you really believe that I would do that?

WHY would I do that?!?

I edit all my posts, all the time. I don't "manipulate" the evidence.

 

I really hope you're joking and that you don't have such low opinion on my character.

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you want proof of that?

 

The edit happened 4 hours ago While your post came 3 hours ago.

 

22123.png
 

 

(Yes, I edited it to add the image)

 

After nearly 2 years that I am here, that we have discussed in good order even when we disagree, you accuse me of manipulating a post to make it seem you made an erroneous statement? Why would I do that? What could I possibly gain from that?

 

What is your problem with me? Seriously. What have I ever done here for you to assume that I would be pulling something like that?

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other possibility, I guess, is that I opened the thread and started writing my reply; you then edited your post; I then made my post.  But I will point out that there were already several posts after yours, by the time I made my post.  No one expects posts that far up the thread to have their content completely changed.  It might have been different if it were the most recent post.

 

But seriously, you edited that "90%" line to be something completely different from what it was originally.  You know that!  In which case you might say, when you saw my reply, "Oh, Slarty, I edited that post -- you must not have seen the edit."  Not "that's not what I said."  It is what you said.  You just changed it later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Also, for the record, they were less than an hour apart -- probably just a few minutes -- as it was showing 3 hours on all of those when I posted above.)

 

EDIT: And this time you *definitely* edited after I replied :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What?

I don't understand what you're saying here, really.

 

Have I put something in the post, edited it when you were writing something before you posted that something and then later, I saw the post as you had it at the time, as I quoted it and I am somehow underhanded?

What have I posted*? Yes, I edit my posts. Sometimes (like a couple posts up) I complete lose the text on an edit!

 

And how would I know you have been writing your post based on something I really don't remember I had there? It was never there in your post...

Perhaps I had something that made you think that I was making conclusions on Litalia and then I edited it for clarity.

There's indeed a   small chance that I had accidentally posted something like "90% confident Litalia did X" (which I doubt but I don't remember) and changed it in the few minutes as you say that you took to post because I read it and said "meh, that's bizarre".

 

THAT DOES NOT EQUATE WITH ME CHANGING THE POST AFTER READING YOUR COMMENT OR MANIPULATING REPLIES TO ACCUSE YOU OF... ? (I am not really sure what I accused you for or what I would gain from that crap you said I pulled).

 

*Yes, I don't remember what I've posted and I don't think it was conclusions about Litalia that were eradicated suddenly while you were writing the post (and later accused me of manipulating it, no, I didn't read your mind cause that would be the only way to do what you accused me of initially).

 

 

Is there a way to see the post history? I really, REALLY don't remember what I've written.    

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, As if a double hunt said:

Yes, and from now on, don't worry, I know to quote any post of yours I reply to in its entirity, because I can't trust that it won't randomly change when you decide to edit it.

 

Seriously?

You accuse me for manipulating a post  to make you, that until 10 minutes ago looked up to for your excellent work in balance and your knowledge of the game, seem like you made a tiny error...

and instead of an apology for drugging my name through the mud, you still preach that I am deceitful? Really?

 

Again:

Buddy, what have I ever done to you? Where did that attack and this low opinion come from? Because I made a few remarks that you disagree with?

Because I made a few comments about a game without consulting the whole lore and jumped to erroneous conclusions? Again, about a GAME?

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, alhoon said:

*Yes, I don't remember what I've posted and I don't think it was conclusions about Litalia that were eradicated suddenly while you were writing the post

It was.

 

And no, there's no edit history on posts.  One of many excellent reasons to think about posts before you make them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, As if a double hunt said:

It was.

 

And no, there's no edit history on posts.  One of many excellent reasons to think about posts before you make them.

 

It probably was just not clear enough.

 

And no, "a person that I've discussed in good faith for 2 freaking years suddenly saying I manipulate posts because of an edit" is not exactly a good reason.

There are posts in this thread that I've edited -over 6- times. You want to call me sloppy? That's fine, I can accept that.

 

But calling me deceitful?

Again, why on earth even if I was a deceitful poster, would I do that?! Why would I change a post after your reply and then say "I didn't say that, I said this"?

Did you ever see me shying away from mistakes I've made? From erroneous first conclusions?

 

Did you see me editing the posts I made in the beginning that clearly make me seem like an idiot, about how Barzahl was a champion of Creation Rights for example?! About the inability of the Shapers to fix the colony?

WHY ON EARTH would I do that for Litalia?

Again: WHERE DID THAT SUSPITION OVER MY CHARACTER CAME FROM? I have been here for 2 years, I have ~780 posts in this place and good 20% of them are false, while ~80% are multi-edited (Including this post). I keep asking and I keep not getting a reply. Why you had such an opinion on me? Based on what?

 

1 hour ago, As if a double hunt said:

(Also, for the record, they were less than an hour apart -- probably just a few minutes -- as it was showing 3 hours on all of those when I posted above.)

 

 

So... not "that far up" as the "No one expects posts that far up the thread to have their content completely changed" would imply... and it would be quite strange to have the whole content completely changed in a few minutes...

 

 

EDIT: While it's not important, since what saddens me is the "I see change, I assume alhoon manipulated the post instead of assuming he edited while I was typing"... does anyone remember what I said before the edit in the "90% confident" post? Was what I was written there a lot different from the edit, or the edit was for clarity?

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, alhoon said:

does anyone remember what I said before the edit in the "90% confident" post? Was what I was written there a lot different from the edit, or the edit was for clarity?

 

My own recollection is that the substance of your comment was meaningfully different, Alhoon. FWIW. I can't give an exact quote, but I'm pretty sure it was substantively different. And I'm, ah, shall we say, 90% ;) certain I've seen other instances in your discussions on these forums where you edited the SUBSTANCE of your posts (as opposed to just grammatical cleanup or minor tweaks for clarity).

 

Relevant quotes from Slarty (assuming he didn't edit them ;):p ):

5 hours ago, As if a double hunt said:

Dude.  Now I call foul...I am not going to engage with someone who deliberately edits their comments after they have been replied to, then claims the people replying were wrong about what you said.

 

4 hours ago, As if a double hunt said:

I can't trust that it won't randomly change when you decide to edit it.

 

Slarty made no accusations against your character, Alhoon. There's a profound difference between calling out someone's behavior and attacking their character. Saying "This thing you did was out of line" is not at all the same as saying "You're a bad person." Slarty criticized the way you were editing your posts, because it made them unreliable as way to follow the discussion. Thus, he concluded that if he wants to respond to anything you say, he needs to quote it, lest your propensity for editing eliminate the context of his responses or make them look unreasonable. He is not and has not attacked your character, at least not as I read his posts. That's NOT an accusation of evil motives or bad character. That's frustration that you're not following accept conventions of discussion of a forum like this (e.g. specifically, that people don't substantively alter their old posts but leave them to represent an accurate history of the discussion). You may want to seriously consider dialing back the editing; if it's not very simple grammatical corrections, and especially if there have been any posts at all since yours, perhaps don't edit and instead just make a new post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Triumph said:

 

 

Slarty made no accusations against your character, Alhoon. There's a profound difference between calling out someone's behavior and attacking their character. Saying "This thing you did was out of line" is not at all the same as saying "You're a bad person." Slarty criticized the way you were editing your posts, because it made them unreliable as way to follow the discussion. Thus, he concluded that if he wants to respond to anything you say, he needs to quote it, lest your propensity for editing eliminate the context of his responses or make them look unreasonable. He is not and has not attacked your character, at least not as I read his posts. That's NOT an accusation of evil motives or bad character. That's frustration that you're not following accept conventions of discussion of a forum like this (e.g. specifically, that people don't substantively alter their old posts but leave them to represent an accurate history of the discussion). You may want to seriously consider dialing back the editing; if it's not very simple grammatical corrections, and especially if there have been any posts at all since yours, perhaps don't edit and instead just make a new post.

 

Not direct accusations no. But there have been accusations that I did it on purpose to make him look like he made a mistake. That's not painting me in a bad light? 

I am not "someone who deliberately edits their comments after they have been replied to, then claims the people replying were wrong about what he said"

As a note, saying "you do bad things" is not far from "you're a bad person" despite being different. Apologies, but someone who deliberately does what I was accused of is deceitful.

And Slarty's post was not in the light of "this thing you did once was out of line", it was in the light of "You do things out of line, so I won't reply to you any more".

 

I have been a member of several forums, my posting-editing habits have never led anyone to call my posts deceitful. OK, my post changed since he posted so the half line of "90% [Litalia conclusions]" seemed partially wrong. Why the the first explanation to come to Slarty's mind was "Alhoon changed it to cover his butt!"  ? Why?

That's what saddens me most. And it's the one I have not received any answer at despite asking several times.

I think the answer is quite clear by the silence: Because Slarty had a low opinion about me to begin with.

 

The second thing that saddens me:

OK, let's assume that it was significantly different and then I changed my mind and edited it out realizing that it was erroneous. I am allowed to change my mind.

 Slarty hasn't seen the change and posted on the previous comment that within minutes I have realized it didn't belong there and deleted. I post "that's not what I said".

And suddenly here we are because the edit made 1 line of slarty's comment redundant. As if claiming that one of the most respected members was wrong in half a post would achieve anything.

The whole thread made toxic because I had to defend my actions and then I was asking of an explanation of why I should have to defend what should have been self-evident based on my history on this forum.

Who would even care about what I have to say about the game now? Would Slarty even care to reply to a question about "lvl 22 Vlish or Drayk"  or something now? Would you Triumph care to discuss the "what-ifs" of Litalia's history through your greater experience in the game and from your profession?

How can I ask people that have more or less showed they wouldn't mind if I disappeared from their forum and have low opinion on me my behavior for advice or engage them in academic discussion?

 

The third thing that saddens me:

The haste to assume I would be making deceitful changes to make someone seem wrong, paints in a different light the comments I've received from the "old guard" of this forum. Guys I am not antagonizing you! I am not attempting to make you seem bad, or to "win arguments" or something.

Where we disagree, I openly say so and say why and if I turn up wrong, I face the music. When you convince me, I give you a respectful nod.

 

Editing since others posted: I try to do that, but sometimes I do other things (like playing the game or speaking on the phone) while I have not finished an edit or addition. I may not even be aware that someone else posted. You may see posts of mine growing exponentially through time.

And again: Sure, you may call me sloppy poster. Acceptable. I am. You may say I write too long posts. I do. You may say that I shouldn't post unless I am sure the post reflects a position I have fully come to embrace and not developing positions. I disagree but no problem with such a suggestion.

To my defense, I often write a post on notebook before posting here since either my position is developing as I write the post or I may add other things in it.

 

Yes I will dial back the editing. After all there is a lingering threat of being called deceitful accused of deceitful changes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alhoon, there is a substantial difference between doing bad things and being a bad person. There are very few people that have not done bad things in their lives, and as with this occasion, society does their best to correct said bad actions or behaviour. I don't think any 4 year old child instinctively knows what is a good moral conduct according to their society. (although that in itself is another mess cause society also thought women voting was a bad thing at one point but it is irrelevant in this discussion) my point being you didn't know better, and people explained their issue with what you did. And honestly even for me i lose track of what you mean in conversations, because once i start writing i move forward, not backwards to check if someone edited.


In any case, i understand may be conflicting esp as earlier you were encouraged not to double/triple post. But the idea here is to have a clear idea of what you want to say before saying it as to avoid both massive editing and multiple posting.


And to address your right to changing your mind; you have it, but you could as well write a new post saying, "now that i think about it, i changed my mind " or similar. Editing back what you say to express a change of mind at best confuses a reader that wasn't here accompanying the discussion, at worst makes the people arguing against you look straight out silly. And since this is available for anyone to see, it's easy to understand the issue that they might have.


And i do not think anybody feels antagonised, all i see here is mild frustration and exasperation.

Moral of the story is, when someone does something wrong there are few ways to make a person see it that dont involve an accusation of wrongdoing.

EDIT: I conveniently forgot to address this, but when you *must* edit out a post in meaningful ways or want to add to it, do so by this format. It is commonly used and makes a clear distinction between what you said originally. I hope this was helpfull

Edited by Owenmoz
rhetorical example, and to add something i had forgotten to,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:(

 

Alhoon, you're blowing this way out of proportion. Please try to see that. The reason no one can "explain" why seeing you edit a post led them to think you're deceitful is BECAUSE NO THINKS YOU'RE DECEITFUL. You shouldn't be personalizing a critique of behavior as a statement on your character or intentions. Slarty (nor I, for that matter) NEVER said anything about your intentions in editing posts, NEVER suggested you were doing it make him look bad or yourself look good, and NEVER said you were doing it to be intentionally deceptive. NO ONE accused you of deliberately doing anything wrong (deliberately editing, yes, but not deliberately lying). I accused you of violating unwritten conventions of forum etiquette, yes, but A. I didn't say it was intentional, and B. that's not exactly a serious moral trespass under any even halfway coherent system of morality I've ever heard of. You are reading way, way, way more into these comments than either of us ever meant. Please, chill. We pointed out how your editing habit has the potential to make subsequent replies look out of place or lack context. The closest I think anyone came to accusing you is this statement by Slarty:

20 hours ago, As if a double hunt said:

I am not going to engage with someone who deliberately edits their comments after they have been replied to, then claims the people replying were wrong about what you said.

But look carefully at what he said! He said, essentially, that it was frustrating or unfair or unreasonable to try to carry on a discuss if you were going to edit past statements after people replied, and then turn around and say "No, that's not what I think." Slarty even offered the PERFECT solution to this kind of thing: saying

20 hours ago, As if a double hunt said:

In which case you might say, when you saw my reply, "Oh, Slarty, I edited that post -- you must not have seen the edit."

instead of "You're wrong about what I said." Thus, he didn't accuse you of moral malfeasance, he proposed that you tweak your behavior re: responding so as to help avoid confusion. Here's two key quotes from this discussion

20 hours ago, As if a double hunt said:

Not "that's not what I said."  It is what you said.  You just changed it later.

 

6 hours ago, alhoon said:

I post "that's not what I said".

Obviously that's not an exact quote of your response to Slarty at the bottom of the last page, but you guys seem to agree that it paraphrases or encapsulates something you expressed. And that was the real moment there was problem, where instead of saying "Oh, I edited that post and adjusted some things" you INADVERTENTLY gave the impression that you'd never said anything different. That spawned Slarty's comments saying, in effect, "Hey! It's not fair to edit your post and then respond in a new comment as if the edited the post where what you'd always said."

 

There's no toxicity. There's no haste to assume you're deceitful. There's no explanation for why you have to defend your character because no one was attacking your character. There's no one convinced they'll never ever reply to anything you say ever again. (As for what Slarty, I point out that he has, so far, made FOUR replies to you in this very thread since he comment up about "not engaging," which suggests his statement wasn't nearly as absolute as you're fretting it is.) You taking ONE post capture ONE moment of frustration from Slarty and inflating it into some sort of general manifesto by the entire forum community that we all think you're a wicked liar. But that's NOT what is happening here. There's just one forum oldbie expressing a little moment of exasperation with someone for not adhering to the unstated conventions of discussion in a setting like this. He went on to offer two solutions: A. you could just say "Oh, FYI, I edited that last post to better reflect my thinking" instead of saying "You're wrong that 's not what I think" and B. he could make the effort to quote whatever you say that he's responding to so that the context of his comments remains clear even after your own thinking has evolved. You even admit there are no direct accusations against you!

6 hours ago, alhoon said:

Not direct accusations no.

So, if there are no direct accusations against you of sin, and I and Slarty (presumably he agreed with my last post, given his response to it?) denying any sneaky implicit accusations, can you accept that maybe, just maybe, no one is accusing you, directly or indirectly, of any sins? There's no "lingering threat" of accusations, as you put it. There's nothing for you to be sad about. Just a misunderstanding to overcome and move on from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alhoon, I appreciate the impulse to apologize.  I don't think you need to apologize, though.  I do see where you're coming from.  So I understand the drama.

 

What I do wish you would do is listen to what Triumph is saying about conventions of forum/discussion etiquitte and take some of it to heart.

 

For example, you keep repeating, post after post, that I called you "deceitful."  You actually said that seven times on this page of the thread :D However, I never used that word or anything close to it.  In fact I think the only time that word has come up in this thread is when you called Zakary deceitful :) 

 

But let's consider a continuum of words.

 

On one end of the continuum is Alhoon.  Alhoon, you like to use words very loosely.  You enjoy being able to interpret the same word or sentence in different ways, depending on how it suits your purpose at the moment.  You also enjoy using strong language (and bold and italics) to make your points -- even when you aren't 100% sure about them and don't feel strongly about them.  You have sometimes cited evidence that you know you are foggy on, because it sounded good.  You are more interested in using evocative means of expression.  It's almost an artistic approach to expression.  It's definitely a high volume approach.

 

On the other end of the continuum, you have folks like me and Triumph, who lean towards precision.  We enjoy picking just the right word to use, that communicates just the right nuance about a situation.  We also enjoy analyzing all the details of a text (and its context and so on) to settle on a fitting interpretation of it.  In our cases part of this is professional habit.  Actually there are a lot of folks here who have professions that emphasize precision in language -- programmers and lawyers, linguists and writers, and so on.

 

Naturally, you get frustrated when we try to pin down your words and ideas more precisely -- and we get frustrated when your words are so vague and your arguments so constantly shifting, we don't feel like we can even grasp them with our hands to see what they are.  This is why "forum etiquitte" and "discussion/debate etiquitte" are really somewhere in the middle.  People need enough freedom to be flexible in how they talk and not get too bogged down in finding the perfect word for everything -- on the other hand, if too little effort is put into those tasks, communication becomes very difficult.

 

I think the double whammy for you, Alhoon, is the language factor.  Although you are obviously a very good English speaker, you mentioned that it is not your first language -- and I wonder if that makes the precision aspect harder for you.  Speaking for myself, I am happy to give you some extra leeway for that.  If something doesn't quite fit -- I get it.  But you have to put in some more effort too.  You write a crapton of long posts here.  Maybe reread them before you hit post.  Maybe save your strong language for when you really feel strongly about something.  Etc., etc.  Again, these are just suggestions.  No one is trying to chase you away.  But I bet we would all love it (yourself included) if it was less frustrating to have debates between the two ends of this continuum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, I agree with most of what you say about how I post... I can't say that I agree with all of it (I am usually considered stubborn and hard to change my views)  but I agree with most of it.

 

Zakary is deceitful. I don't think I've seen any character many characters (to be more precise) as deceitful in the decades that I play games. Either through design, or author oversight anything he said or at least how I understood his words, everything he said was false. From the number of Guardians, that I suddenly found like 10 of them sitting in the mud behind a locked door, to the state of the colony, Barzahl's fate... even the sect Barzahl is in seems to be false. As Barzahl's sprite indicates and his talent to terraform a valley the Shapers have failed to transform for 20 years that he is not a Guardian but a Shaper. I have not fought him yet to be sure he'll fight with magic and not blade, but since he has a canistermad gorilla Guardian next to him, I would dare say (with my partial knowledge) that I expect him to be fighting as a GF2 Shaper (i.e. magic).

 

About the long posts... I know. :( I've been on the "speaks too much" \ "writes too much" side all my life.

 

As a note, since the change of the forums (before it was very hard for me to type here, had to write on notepad first and copy-paste) I often delete 1/5th of a post, deleting things I wanted to say to make a post shorter.
Many of the "long posts" you see are 20% shorter than what they started.

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nim said:

You are putting way too much thought into small stuff like this barzahl shaper/guardian thing. Jeff forgot the whole second shaper continent and thus we are now stuck with terrestria :grin:

I still hold that the Shapers experimented too far there. They ended up creating an Unbound Vlish (they were attempting to create a tasty Vlish to replace ornks), which promptly annihilated the continent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nim said:

You are putting way too much thought into small stuff like this barzahl shaper/guardian thing. Jeff forgot the whole second shaper continent and thus we are now stuck with terrestria :grin:

 

 

What second Shaper continent? Terrestia could be said to have two continents, East and bulwark of the Rebellion and West and fortress of evil Shapers, connected by some land.

 

There were more continents? Aside of 2-continent Terrestia? Never heard of that.

 

But yes, I think most of us realize at the back of our minds that the various inconsistencies are just inconsistencies and we're doing mental gymnastics to rationalize them.

So, I will try to explain the non-Terrestia Continent.

 

Once upon a time, Lying Zakary the Deceiver wanted more money to waste on his growing gambling habit. So he invented a whole new continent and tried to sell tickets to there to outsiders, shipping them mostly to Sucia island. He had a running contract with the Solai, that they would stop anyone from leaving and if a Shaper even approached the place, they would sink his boat. The Council didn't investigate too far on that since Sucia was barred.

It worked well for a time. But one Shaper made it back from Sucia.

So Zakary in his efforts to hide his duplicity jumped to the task, even in his advanced age, to go to Sucia and help purge the place from scum-victims  rogue creations. He even got a charismatic Shaper on the fold, by telling people he's a Guardian.

 

The rest is history (+ half the reason for the fallout between Bazrahl and Zakary was Zakary gambling away the council's and the Bazrite resources).

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: Big post that is more a rumbling of thoughts as I was playing the game and throwing them in a txt than a structured text that serves any purpose other than me talking loudly about this and that. Parts of this post may contradict earlier parts as my thoughts shift and I am near certain later posts will contradict this one.


Got to the Taker Toll road. 4 Drayks attacked me on sight. there may have been more out of sight.
Talk about overkill... I was killed by the first blast. As a note, I practically can't hit tier 4s with my creations (like having 5% -15% with my creations, under blessing). I am level 21 and they are level 22 (Except my terror Vlish that is level 28 and still has about the same hit chance as my lvl 22 Vlish)
I should have remained with the misfits.

And Drayks I can made (I have Fire Shaping up to 6 with equipment and 2 levels of Drayk) are expensive and miss a lot and have like 30hp over my Vlish. Really not worth it. I wasted perhaps 5400 coins.

 

Speaking about the misfits: The Eye keeps them under very rigid control that impresses my Shaper. Taking control of the Drayks to stop them from attacking me, freezing serviles allowing only their eyes to move, putting disloyals to cages to die... I mean, that Gazer sounds more like a Shaper-ideology creature: no canisters (so far), no torturing creations to keep them in line, rigid control and ruthless suppression of creation dissent but still a mis-Shaped Drakon is allowed to live.

 

It is not rare in later games to find Gazers controlling creations. But Melancon Eye tells me that he was also surprised to be able to do it. Is it rare? Or since gazers are brand new here... they didn't know they could control creations?

 

And he says something interesting: "I thought only humans and sometimes serviles could do that" (that= control creations). No mention of Drakons and... what? He knows of Serviles that can control creations? I thought they were rare as a roc's teeth before the Southforge. I haven't seen any in GF2 so far. And the one able to do it in GF5 that I met, she had been Shaped by Rawal to be able to do it, thanks to the control tool.
Frankly I thought that Shaping Serviles were an oddity allowed in the game just for the benefit of the player.

I find funny the "The foul Takers made my kind, very few of us since we're hard to make" So, Gazers were mistrusted by the Rebellion from the -very start-... I thought that started later.
Of course, the best part was "Then they cast me out". "Why?" "Well, they didn't actually I left because they would try to kill me. And now I will take revenge!" [for the non-casting out desertation for allegedly wanting to kill him]
Ah, I love gazers. I wish we could have more discussions with gazers.


Now, question please: he gave me a quest to kill the Taker Boss Syros that made him (haven't made that guy/gal/drayk/drakon). Unless I miss something, the missfits are not Barzite-minded or Awakened-minded. They do seem close in thinking with the Shapers but any loyal Shaper would kill the Gazer despite them both agreeing that rigid control is required.
What are they? A pseudo-faction? A contra-rebellion like the cryodrayks of GF4?


Ahh... it keeps getting better. I found a servile feeling depressed for not having a Shaper leash around his mind and I get a text that most "proper" creations feel hopeless and lost without a Shaper holding their puppet strings. That's IMO similar to addict your serfs to opium so they won't leave despite the cruel treatment.
And most interesting of all: I got the Misfit servile to follow me. Because he heard that I am just and I fight my kind (I am)
Do those NPCs talk like Greta and Alwan?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, gazers are based on the design of the vlish. And vlish are known to have some telepathic ability to herd or direct lesser creations. So it's very possible that the ability of gazers to control other creation is a refined or enhanced variation of that old vlish ability.

 

No, the NPC party members in G2 don't talk. Conversational NPC party members was a new feature of G3 (and something Jeff greatly expanded upon in the Avadon series).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess there's a difference between being able to power through the game with previous knowledge, and going at it for the first time. Seeing talks about how people are "X" level and can't take on something when I'm normally around that level and clearing the area just feels weird man. 

Then again, it's been over a decade since it was my first playthrough of most of this series. /shrug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geneforge is definitely a series where some builds are much stronger than others.  Tactics also matter; if you're used to the ways to optimize & exploit things in Spiderweb games, your PCs will fare much better as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found Geneforge to require a different playing style than other Spiderweb games. Mostly it is because outside of combat creations move around even when you do nothing. So while you stop to consult the auto map to plan where to go, the creations move up and attack.

 

This means making multiple saves so you don't lose too much with sudden attacks. Buff when they will last for the zone instead of waiting for the fight. Consider always staying in combat mode in some zones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, about the half-dozen Drayks.

My puny Shaper with ~30-40 hp was going first, the long line of Vlish with 150+ hp following. If I was, like a reasonable person, last in the line and have threw protection and bless on my creations when I turned that corner, things would be different. But still, the Drayks have 350-360hp while Drayks I shape have like half that.

 

As of Equipment, I hardly do any quests or exploration at the time. I rush to meet the factions getting sidetracked only by some interesting areas I drop in (the Misfits) and doing quests that burn through my mind (trying to heal the disease or that servile-under-brainwash).

 

All in all, the reason I play on easy is exactly so I won't have to bother with equipment and grinding. I have my Vlish army, I do quests I find interesting, I rarely use canisters, so I expect the game to be as difficult as normal.

Vlish are very strong in this game again; my leveled up Vlish seem stronger than Drayks costing 1/3 of the essence (intelligence included).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alhoon said:

Well, about the half-dozen Drayks.

My puny Shaper with ~30-40 hp was going first, the long line of Vlish with 150+ hp following. If I was, like a reasonable person, last in the line and have threw protection and bless on my creations when I turned that corner, things would be different. But still, the Drayks have 350-360hp while Drayks I shape have like half that.

 

As of Equipment, I hardly do any quests or exploration at the time. I rush to meet the factions getting sidetracked only by some interesting areas I drop in (the Misfits) and doing quests that burn through my mind (trying to heal the disease or that servile-under-brainwash).

 

All in all, the reason I play on easy is exactly so I won't have to bother with equipment and grinding. I have my Vlish army, I do quests I find interesting, I rarely use canisters, so I expect the game to be as difficult as normal.

Vlish are very strong in this game again; my leveled up Vlish seem stronger than Drayks costing 1/3 of the essence (intelligence included).

You end up with a great deal of money, assuming you rob everyone blind. Load up on loads of essence pods and, at the VERY LEAST, cast augmentation (only a tier 3 healing spell) to raise your health and your creations' health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't rob everyone blind though... But I have ~15-16 essence pods. I find it boring to check every barrel or scourge the terrain for sellable things that would sell for 5-10 coins. I have stopped picking up javelins, steel javelins, thorns etc and even with the +10 str there's a limit of how many armors I can carry...

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alhoon said:

I don't rob everyone blind though... But I have ~15-16 essence pods. I find it boring to check every barrel or scourge the terrain for sellable things that would sell for 5-10 coins. I have stopped picking up javelins, steel javelins, thorns etc and even with the +10 str there's a limit of how many armors I can carry...

There are a number of methods by which you can make all the pylons in an area with lots of pylons turn neutral, and methods by which you can brutally murder every turret ever. Selling submission/reapers/acid thorns and gemstones (which pylons drop) can get you loads of money. Also, killing drayks (you can often goad them into attacking you in Taker areas without making Takers hate you) usually gets you ~60 gold dropped per drayk and free access to all the gold and gemstones in their nests.

 

Just some suggestions for getting yourself lots of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, alhoon said:

True, but I would have to weaken the Takers.
Every Drayk I kill is one Drayk less to fight Litalia & co.

Unless you are joining the Takers...

 

I believe you have to kill Taker leaders or some such thing if you join the Awakened, which is the faction I assume you want to do...

 

*Edit*

Of course, I personally suggest that you simply methodically sweep every area and kill literally everything. Loyalist encampment? Eh, who cares? Zakary? He deserves it. Sharon? She already knows she's going to suffer the results of her actions. Everyone else? Insane rogues that'll turn on you and kill you if they think it'll help them, Barzites and Awakened included.

Edited by TheKian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking to do that for the Barzites and I already have a quest to take down the Taker Leaders. I am not sure whether I will join the Awakened that I sympathize most with or the Takers that have the most power (Barzites and Shapers are not in the equation as I cannot ally with them).

 

PS. talking about endgame quests makes me kinda itchy. I've not talked to the Takers yet and after I do, I'll do some exploring before joining any faction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found some really anti-social cryodrayks locked in their houses outside Zhass-Uss. I have no idea why and when I tried to talk to them they talk me in non polite tones to butt off. If I tried to even step in their room, they attacked me.


In any case, I got to Zhass-Uss and I am very under-whelmed. The place is a slum according to the info while I was expecting some majestic stuff like Drakons so much like to throw around. These are the people promising me more power than Bazrahl. And they actually seem the non-friendly people I may align with because they will survive Litalia so it's not pointless to speak with them and they seem to have, from what others tell me, a fighting chance. From first impression, they don't look impressive, but appearances can be deceiving. They are the ones to survive after all, after tempting Litalia.


NOTE: There are again a couple of rough edges in the writting here.



A drayk is "A few years" old. We know. The whole place is "a few years old" and I doubt pre-canister Barzahl would be as disloyal to bring a lot of Drayks out of Sucia. So every random Drayk here would be a "few years old" or younger.
I have also met a servile "barely old enough" to work that was ~10 (the age serviles are put to work according to Tyne) and born in Succia. There's a similar one here, Igner, a little older, yet she spent "most of her life" in here. But Barzahl and Zakary are around for just 5 years (or so Lying Zakary the Deceiver claimed...). So unless they built that place immediately without any kind of work, that very young servile should have spent like 1/3 of her life in Zhass-Uss, not most of her life.


And there is a line that unless it is a mistake, it does go too far and made me very uncomfortable.

 


Igner is young, very young.
Her son is already 9 years old.
I don't like the implication at all. Igner is certainly not 25+. 
I really believe this is spotchy writemanship, but it did made me go O_O and not in a good way.

 

Takers and Drayks:
Drayks ignore the plight of their own serviles letting them starve and ignoring spinecores that were infesting the farms. The few, weak farms. Serviles were starving. Starving!
Not that some of their own serviles don't deserve that by the way. I told Ignia I've killed the spinecores. I did it because I felt very bad for the serviles and the poor girl was malnurished along with the rest of the serviles.
The thank you I got? She will tell everyone, I'm helping the takers... I don't, I don't! Don't spoil my reputation with the Awakened Ignia! I did to help the -serviles-, not the stupid arrogant drayks that lead\boss-them-around. :(

Graveyard: Interesting headstones in the graveyard.

Infirmary: The Takers according to the text care the most about the rights and care of creations... as long as Drayks don't have to go out of their way to kill spinecores.


Looking for Syros: I found a Shaping vat. But I haven't found any Shapers or Lifecrafters.
I found though a kinda naive Cryodrayk, Dhorass that says she "shepherds" the Drakons :D Good going buddy, sure. Keep believing that. Cryodrayks will rule and guide the drakons. Hold that thought.
After I told this not-smartest specimen "WHY are you controling the drakons instead of leaving them free?" I got one of the most hillarious line in the series:
"Drakons are headstrong and arrogant, but only for now, I am sure." :D:D:D I laughed out loud at that. As in, I went "hahahaha" not broke a smirk.

 

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Apologies for the bolds and all, I am itchy right now, excited with discovery)

Hmmm... A servile Alchemist told me the disease to cure serviles is in an another (hard to spell) city, where they actually care about serviles. That I can't go or they will kill me.

Syros:
"Everyone calls us mad, maybe they are right" = not good introductory speech. You're not making my choice to join the awakened any harder.


Question: Syros says there were three Drayks that escaped. One is called Rakkus. O_O I've met a Drakon named Rakkus in GF5. He's there in the very last battle with Ghaldring! Do I remember the name wrong? Is it a coincidence? Did Drayks shaped themselves to Drakons changing their actual form?! I mean, that is insanely wonderful!
I may actually join the mad-drayks after all. If they show they usually treat Serviles better and that disgrace here is just their worse side.


OK, his intro is not very impressive but his viewpoint, how the Serviles are treated, how it is absurd and downright hubris to declare the existence of a whole race of sentients that you have designed as "illegal", that the Shapers should be destroyed while humans are fine... this summarizes like 3/4 of my beliefs. I am also interested in seeing knowledge shared, but we can't have everything.


Outside:
I found a Shaper with a good foresight: If  everyone in these mountains isn't killed, Huge monsters (Unbound), diseases (Purity agent) etc would ravage the land. OK, true.

 

In any case, I cleared out some mad serviles and returned to Medab. After quite a long time, that place really feels like home. The Takers have strong arguments and whatever the rest are saying, they are not the mad ones. The others are mad. But Medab feels like home...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alhoon said:

And they actually seem the non-friendly people I may align with because they will survive Litalia so it's not pointless to speak with them and they seem to have, from what others tell me, a fighting chance. From first impression, they don't look impressive, but appearances can be deceiving. They are the ones to survive after all, after tempting Litalia.

Again, you are looking at this backwards.  They are the ones whose faction (in a fairly different form) happens to have survived in the future path followed by G3, which does not actually correspond perfectly to any of the endings the player can get.  (And as Triumph established clearly and I thought you agreed, Litalia did not personally cleanse the entire valley nor was she in a position of power such that it is reasonable to assume that anyone "survived" or "did not survive" her in particular.)

 

And there is a line that unless it is a mistake, it does go too far and made me very uncomfortable.

Igner is young, very young.
Her son is already 9 years old.
I don't like the implication at all. Igner is certainly not 25+. 
I really believe this is spotchy writemanship, but it did made me go O_O and not in a good way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Eg67jDh2Ts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Drakon is called 'Rhakkus', not 'Rakkus'. And, let me assure you, he is MOST DEFINITELY a different one from the one in Geneforge 5.

 

Something that really is a callback to Geneforge 2 in G5 is Gazaki-Uss. In Geneforge 2, there is a creation disposal ground called 'Gazak-Uss', and we learn from Alwan that 'Gazaki' means 'younger Gazak'.

 

Also, the Drakons are specifically established to be, in multiple parts in multiple games, reShaped Drayks. However, I do not believe that either Rhakkus or Easss were originally Drakys - the only ones we know to be Drayks are ones that have already been established in canon - Syros and Akkat, from Sucia Island in Geneforge 1.

 

Also, as Slarty said, you keep referring to a canon that is not canon if you help the Takers or the Awakened or the Barzites. Do NOT join a faction because 'oh, they'll survive the Shaper purge'. There will not BE a Shaper purge because you joined their faction. Again, as I said, if you really like the Awakened, you should join them. The Takers are just as bad as the Drakons in Geneforge 5. Although I have not completed the game (yet) as Barzites or Takers, I am fairly certain that every rebellious faction in the Drypeaks 'wins' (in terms of 'not being wiped out') if you help them. Remember, the Shaper council wouldn't even have destroyed everything in the Drypeaks if the Geneforge 2 player character did not go back to the council and tell them about everything after having ruined every single hostile faction already.

 

Finally, don't assume that Serviles actually have the same kind of developmental process as humans. Also keep in mind that, back in ye olden days, twelve was an expected, acceptable age for marriage (irrelevant to what we think of it now...) for humans. Don't assume that Serviles must have the same generation length as humans (I mean, sure, they're probably actually heavily Shaped human descendants, but...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhakkus was a Drayk.  There were three Drayks on Sucia: Syros, Akkat, and Rhakkus.  This is particularly notable because they correspond to the three Shaper leaders Danette, Defniel, and Corata.  (At least one (Syros) and maybe all of them were actually created by those Shapers as their personal drayks.  I can't remember about the others for sure and it's been a long time.)

 

I'm a little bit fuzzy on the Drayk to Drakon transition because, frankly, the Takers and Barzites have so many conflicting claims about who did what, and there are so many drayks/drakons involved.  There may be a clear answer if we go and look at their words more specifically, I don't know.  It does seem that Barzahl kicked things off by working (on?) Rhakkus.  Rhakkus created Easss, but I'm not clear if Easss was originally a full-fledged drakon or if he was originally a drayk who shaped himself into a drakon.  Easss, of course, created Ghaldring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Blind Weakness Services said:

  (And as Triumph established clearly and I thought you agreed, Litalia did not personally cleanse the entire valley nor was she in a position of power such that it is reasonable to assume that anyone "survived" or "did not survive" her in particular.)

 

 

Yes, I completely agreed but I have mentioned many times over that I do it out of convenience because that apprentice in the large group of Shapers is the only one I know. If Lord Rahul had told me that he was there, I would be blaming him. But I only know Litalia. :)

 

Servile developmental process: Igner has spent most her life in Zhass-Uss that didn't exist till 5 years ago and yet her son is 9. They probably mixed up the ages there since her son's life is "mostly" in Zhass-Uss (as in about 1/2 of his life).

 

GF3+: Yes, I realize that all endings are valid, but the official one is very grim for the Rebellion even if it doesn't correspond perfectly to any of the endings.

I certainly plan to do both Awakened and Takers, and perhaps even find it worth the effort to do Loyalists or unaligned. But as Triumph said earlier those are "alternative history".

 

Drayks to Drakons: So there is at least a strong possibility that Drayks didn't just evolve further generations into Drakons through Shaping, they actually got in a pool as Drayks and got out of it as Drakons? EDIT: Don't answer that please, it was pointed out to me that talking with the first NPC to mention it is not obviously the whole thing. I prefer to discover more about it.

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alhoon said:

as Triumph said earlier those are "alternative history".

Just to be clear: the canonical ending of G2 (based on what we find in G3) most closely resembles the Loyalist or Unaligned ending of G2. Joining the Barzites, Awakened, or Takers in G2 results in an outcome that is cool and interesting but which diverges from significantly from what we find in G3.

 

3 hours ago, alhoon said:

So there is at least a strong possibility that Drayks didn't just evolve further generations into Drakons through Shaping, they actually got in a pool as Drayks and got out of it as Drakons?

Perhaps you should just keep playing the game to learn more about this. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think drakon origins are very complicated, Slarty.

Spoiler

"They took their powers and are going to use them against the Shapers. They have been making drayks, and, from there, drakons. And giving their power to the drakons too. This is terrible." - Barzahl

"Creations are making creations, which are making creations. The Takers are trying to let loose the power of creation, without limits. The drakons they made are making stronger and stronger drakons." - Barzahl

 

 

"We have made drayks into drakons, of course." - Fenen of Radiant College

"Because the drakons are the ones who were created to be able to shape. Barzahl of the Rising determined what quality humans had that enables them to absorb and work essence and gave that trait to the drakons." - Pyre

"I was the first drakon. I was a drayk once. Barzahl discovered how to make drayks into drakons. I insisted on being the first experiment." -Rhakkus

 

Barzahl shaped Rhakkus the drayk into the first drakon. He or other Barzites shaped other drayks into a drakons, too. Then they went off on their own, possibly making more drayks into drakons but also definitely make entirely new drakons.

 

Am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LEVELING CREATIONS and New Creations:

(Slarty, I could use your experience and insight here buddy. I will write things like "X is like Y" because that's the way I write, but please, see it as the "I think that X is like Y, although I am not sure hence the whole post" that it really is. You have done the math, the tests and all. I hope the way I write won't turn you away here.)

 

I did the following in Zhass-Uss. There's a door that if you open, a lot of people become angry with you. I Bypassed Syros, letting him deal with my servile friend that follows me (it was a test! I didn't threw his life away in my "main" playthrough. I loaded after it.) and closed the door before Syros pet Gazers started coming through. Then I dealt with two golems (they are very underwhelming compared to GF5 ones) and opened another door. Canister of Gazer! Yaaay!

 

Made a Gazer. Cost me 125 essence + extra for int.

I remind you all that my Vlish cost 20 essence total.

The Gazer was level 32 or something with 440 hp. Costs more essence as my 3 Vlish and Horrorshiver (terror Vlish) combined. The Gazer's attacks have a better chance to hit, but not that better and although a hit from the gazer hurts, it's as much damage as 3 out of my 4 Vlish pull.  My Vlish combined though have more hp, and having 4 attacks instead of 1 (with the stunning those attacks have) is much better.

At the time of this writing, it would be preferable if I sacrificed Horrorshiver (my terror Vlish which I keep because of his level 28 since he has a better chance to land blows) to get a Gazer. But by the time I will actually get the Gazers probably in like 5+ levels since I will start exploring the rest of the zones now (I had rushed to meet the leaders), Horrorshiver would be at the level the Gazer would be, and while dealing like 1/2 the damage and having 2/3 of the Gazer hp... he would cost like 1/3 of the essence!

 

From what I see in this game, the "difference" between the various creations seems to be the smaller from the 4 games I've seen (GF5 had the biggest difference).

I made a test and created a Drayk and a Vlish. The vlish costs 20 essence and is level 20, while the Drayk costs 75 essence and is level 25.

Yes, I have "invested" more in Magic Shaping (having 7 instead of 5) and Vlish (3 instead of 2). But two of my Vlish would blow the Drayk out of the water for less essence.

Of course... this may only seem so for Vlish which are not exactly balanced.

 

To cut to the chase:

Is it even worth to spend 5000+ coins on better creation types? The Drayks have so far been a huge waste of money; huge. Perhaps cryodrayks could redeem that but it remains to be seen.

Should I consider buying 2 levels of Glaahk when I can cough up the huge amount of money? Or by the time I get the money (I have like 500 coins now; I don't pick up a lot of stuff to sell) my Vlish (ranged Glaahks in the game) would be hilariously more powerful, and cheaper?

Battle Alphas were also a waste of money... What about Rots? Drakons? (Gazers I will get anyway cause I like gazers; power is not the only thing that counts)

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes... but since Slarty has done tests, charts and all, I prefer to defer to his wisdom on the matter since testing that would be tedious and unless I test the creations against several different enemies, it would be inconclusive. It is possible to do it, but there are veterans here. Threads about balance etc. Other pairs of eyes to tell me I forgot something.

Just a few minutes ago, you stepped in and said "Remember; you need 5AP to attack which means just 3AP to move to the enemy" which I had forgot.

 

I am not being lazy and difficult here; I am just saying that I play this game to save the awakened relax and enjoy. Running 1h tests that would have be go back and forth in the scripts is not exactly my favorite part. I do it for like an hour per day already for a new GF5 mod that I started working on.

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...