Mon'tregul's Grasp: change "reduced" to "less"

"
They don't want to break the concept of Montregul's Grasp. What you're trying to do breaks the idea.


The idea of Mon'tregul is fewer but more powerfull summons.
I like that idea so much that I want to take it to the extreme... .
Last edited by Soepkieken on Apr 23, 2015, 1:47:28 PM
"
Soepkieken wrote:
"
They don't want to break the concept of Montregul's Grasp. What you're trying to do breaks the idea.


The idea of Mon'tregul is fewer but more powerfull summons.
I like that idea so much that I want to take it to the extreme... .


I think the question becomes: is it still a zombie?
Looks like a great way to prevent dual wielding without having to resort to something like The Goddess Bound(a 1 handed sword that takes up both slots).
"
Soepkieken wrote:
"
They don't want to break the concept of Montregul's Grasp. What you're trying to do breaks the idea.


The idea of Mon'tregul is fewer but more powerfull summons.
I like that idea so much that I want to take it to the extreme... .


taking

"the idea of ... fewer but more powerful summons"

and removing the fewer part just makes it

"the idea of ... more powerful summons"

that's not taking the idea to the extreme, it's breaking it as Crevox said.

Taking your idea to the extreme would be making your helmet:

25% decreased maximum zombies
[insert zombie buff here]

note that i dont know how GGG actually implemented Monts (they didn't do it the way I'd imagined that they would), so I can't say whether this would be feasible.
IGN Stuns_McNutshot | Ichimans_McIchimans | Balls_McCritterson
Last edited by tsftd on Apr 23, 2015, 8:15:12 PM
Reposting:
"
pneuma wrote:
If I could change one thing about Mon'tregul's Grasp, it would be to change one number on one line:
- From "50% reduced number of zombies allowed"
- To "44% reduced number of zombies allowed"

The difference would be:
Up to 10 zombies: [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
With 1-50% MG...: [1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5]
With 1-44% MG...: [1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5]
With 2-50% MG...: [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
With 2-44% MG...: [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1]

This would allow for 1 more zombie if you have a max of 9, even if you dual wield them. It allows summoners with 9 or more zombies and dual-wield MG to summon the One Zombie To Rule Them All.
Last edited by pneuma on Apr 23, 2015, 8:22:27 PM
Quoting:

"
Mark_GGG wrote:
Quite apart from this going against the base point of the design, you make an assumption here:
"
Soepkieken wrote:
This is VERY easy to program for the developpers. Takes them a few minutes of work.
which you don't actually know anything about, and is in fact completely wrong. This isn't easy. It's not even possible without doing it through an ugly hack that might bite us in the ass in future.

"
Soepkieken wrote:
And nobody can possibly be against this. Indifferent at most... .
I can, mostly for the fact that the point of the item is that this can't happen, but also because I don't want to implement the aforementioned ugly hack.


You'd think that a GGG employee posting, basically saying that it ain't gonna happen, would be the end of the discussion.
IGN Stuns_McNutshot | Ichimans_McIchimans | Balls_McCritterson
"
Mark_GGG wrote:
Quite apart from this going against the base point of the design, you make an assumption here:
"
Soepkieken wrote:
This is VERY easy to program for the developpers. Takes them a few minutes of work.
which you don't actually know anything about, and is in fact completely wrong. This isn't easy. It's not even possible without doing it through an ugly hack that might bite us in the ass in future.

"
Soepkieken wrote:
And nobody can possibly be against this. Indifferent at most... .
I can, mostly for the fact that the point of the item is that this can't happen, but also because I don't want to implement the aforementioned ugly hack.


Get Mark'd son!!! Get Mark'd!!! yeeeEEE~

this suggestion was just Mark'd for death. Oooooh boooooiiiiiii~
Last edited by BearCares on Apr 24, 2015, 4:28:44 PM
"
Mark_GGG wrote:
Quite apart from this going against the base point of the design, you make an assumption here:
"
Soepkieken wrote:
This is VERY easy to program for the developpers. Takes them a few minutes of work.
which you don't actually know anything about, and is in fact completely wrong. This isn't easy. It's not even possible without doing it through an ugly hack that might bite us in the ass in future.

"
Soepkieken wrote:
And nobody can possibly be against this. Indifferent at most... .
I can, mostly for the fact that the point of the item is that this can't happen, but also because I don't want to implement the aforementioned ugly hack.


Mark... seriously, every time I hear you say anything about someone's misimpressions of the code of PoE, you just give me the impression that PoE itself is just a giant hack and that everyone outside of the computer graphics team is just terrible at computer science and programming in general.

The fact that this isn't implemented in a way that is piss-easy to change is just terrifying. Truly terrifying.

I don't even want this change to happen, I just never want to program alongside any of the PoE coders. Ever.
"
tsftd wrote:
Quoting:

"
Mark_GGG wrote:
Quite apart from this going against the base point of the design, you make an assumption here:
"
Soepkieken wrote:
This is VERY easy to program for the developpers. Takes them a few minutes of work.
which you don't actually know anything about, and is in fact completely wrong. This isn't easy. It's not even possible without doing it through an ugly hack that might bite us in the ass in future.

"
Soepkieken wrote:
And nobody can possibly be against this. Indifferent at most... .
I can, mostly for the fact that the point of the item is that this can't happen, but also because I don't want to implement the aforementioned ugly hack.


You'd think that a GGG employee posting, basically saying that it ain't gonna happen, would be the end of the discussion.

If that was in reply to me, my suggestion was not to change it from "reduced" to "less".

I am assuming that changing "50% reduced" to "44% reduced" to "X% reduced" is not nearly as invasive a change.
"
The fact that this isn't implemented in a way that is piss-easy to change is just terrifying. Truly terrifying.

I don't even want this change to happen, I just never want to program alongside any of the PoE coders. Ever.


I dunno, you are assuming all the programmers follow the same protocols and think the same way. I don't think any company has those kind of programmers.

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info