And we've moved on from discussing the topic onto discussing what people said and what they intended, yay. Could you guys take that to PM? Thanks. This argument has been going on back and forth for days now and it's not going anywhere. Move on to something else now plz.
I never used cover in the original game because I didn't understand any circumstance under which I would ever want one party member to take the damage for two.
That wasn't the issue with hlev's argument though. I actually quite enjoy discussing how materia could be adapted to a real-time combat system. The issue was mostly that he presented it as if it was the only right way to go about the remake and his arguments were loaded with fallacies, pretty much ignoring most of what was being said to counter his arguments.
Cover is a great materia to use if you want one character's limit break to raise faster then the other two, especially once you get access to the L4 limit breaks. I use Cover materia when limit break training and it goes a lot faster, and then again in late game to get off a lot more Omnislashs then usual. Just make sure the other characters have some type of healing materia on them.
The Kingdom Hearts series uses commands, which are equippable magic and physical attacks which, in the later installments of the series, have unlimited uses besides the cooldown period. You're allotted a set number of slots to set it up like a deck. The BBS interface looks likewhen you're in the menu to modify it. Battle commands are the attacks you have access to, whereas action commands are things that allow for more diverse movement, dodging and counterattacks. If you stripped everything away, you'd only be able to run around and hit things. You start off with the basics such as jumping, blocking and dodging but you eventually get variations like Aqua's flaming cartwheel, high jump and blocks that have additional effects, such as the stop effect seen in the example of Aqua's block. KH2 hadand in BBS,is basically a barrier spell she can spam almost constantly, which makes some sense since she's established as a skilled magic user. She can also counter with it if you have the Counter Blast command equipped to allow it, which is also shown.
It's also worth noting the D-link system in BBS grants passive abilities while in use, some of which are essentially spell effects that last as long as the D-link is active, which gradually runs out. Some of them include haste, shell and regen.
That wasn't the issue with hlev's argument though. I actually quite enjoy discussing how materia could be adapted to a real-time combat system. The issue was mostly that he presented it as if it was the only right way to go about the remake and his arguments were loaded with fallacies, pretty much ignoring most of what was being said to counter his arguments.
Fixed.
You failed the test. Your text being purple has nothing to do with the reason I didn't respond, but your lack of insight once again prevented you from seeing that. I meant to disagree that the points thrown at me are proportional to what I myself wrote (as I see quite a lot of purple text). See? Once again I have to explain what I meant. Enough.
Discussing with you about what I wrote and what I meant and how you understood it is not something I'm interested in. Don't know how to say this clearer.
I only respond so as to let you know that you have not convinced me and the reasons for my lack of response.
I'm quoting this just so you wouldn't consider this part having been ignored. I don't know if any response is needed for this, I don't know what claims in particular you're talking about.
I'm not interested in convincing anyone, and again I have no idea what what-you-consider-to-be claims you're on about.
Not fixed. You don't fucking ignore what people say when you're having a discussion, where one person says one thing, the other person offers their thoughts on it, proof is given to support claims and everyone actually listens to what the others are saying, which again, you aren't doing. Your arguments are fallacious and hypocritical, which makes them invalid for discussion. By failing to address that and adding even more fallacies in the process, you essentially concede the discussion by failure to hold up your end. Points made in a discussion, by virtue of being the subject of discussion, are important regardless of your opinion. I've also shown examples of you contradicting yourself, so it's more than just opinion.
Missing the point. The way you've been treating what other people say, I have no reason not to treat that insinuation as if there's a chance you genuinely think the large quantities of purple text could be a good reason to devalue what's said, even if you say you've read it all anyway. What you're describing isn't a test, it's a red herring, which is considered a fallacy. Considering my posts turn what other people say purple, I had no reason to think you were talking about disagreeing with the proportion of text. When what I say takes up more space than what it's in response to, it's because proper elaboration often involving examples is necessary to properly address what's been said. Even then, the difference is still manageable. You can't blame someone for not getting the very specific meaning you're trying to convey when you fail to convey it properly, as is shown here. Considering how much I've had to repeat myself due to your refusal to listen, your condescension about having to explain yourself when I've already said you don't explain yourself properly and make use of unclear wording for what you claim to be what you're actually trying to say seems rather unreasonable.hlev said:
Well too fucking bad because the flaws in your arguments need to be addressed before this discussion can move forward.hlev said:
Again, you have the burden of proof, which means you have to convince me of your arguments. Ignoring my examples is on you, not me. If you're going to take the time to respond about what's been said, then continuing to ignore what's been said to reaffirm your claim that you refuse to listen to what's being said in a discussion where you're supposed to listen to what's being said is effectively wasting everyone's time. And in case it isn't blatant enough for you, the repetition is very much deliberate.hlev said:
I am explaining to you why this argument happened in the first place and why addressing what you're saying is important. If you hadn't ignored my posts we'd still have things directly related to the remake's gameplay in this discussion. As for the claims I'm referring to, clearly you need to review the discussion, which now that it has its own thread, should be much easier to do, with special attention to the posts you never properly responded to.hlev said:
If you're going to consider my claims invalid, then you need to prove they aren't rather than simply dismiss them because you don't think they're worth your time. That's not how discussions work.hlev said:
