2011-03-11, 01:23 PM
Luffy Wrote:Regarding your bishop rebuttle, restricting a certain class from using a subset of stave would be similar to restrictions they put on numerous items in the game. Male/female, fame equips, class, level, stats. Unless you are a GMS coder level coder, I don't think any of us can say anything about how difficult/easy it would be to restrict a Bishops from wielding a sub-set of staves. And I am beginning to seriously think you think you are a mind-reader now. How can you say you know what they wanted or didn't want. That info is in their brains for them to keep unless they explicitly make a public statement about period. It could go either way, your theory or what I said about how the natural description of the item gives a penalty to bishops.
Male/female = Coded into the itemID
Fame Equips = Coded into the item data
Class = coded as a bit-based byte based upon major job description (Beginner, Warrior, Mage, Bowman, Thief, Pirate)
Level = Coded into the item data
Stats = Coded into the item data
The way in which they implemented these staves is the easiest method of doing it that would cause the least amount of havoc on the game code. I have seen the unpacked assembly code. I know how the internal engine works.
- Changing the meaning of info/job would require that they update more than 8000 items to add in 16 items to fix one formula.
- Elemental weapons were introduced in early 2008. By this time the Pirate class had already been introduced into KMS for which these wands were initially created. Cygnus Knights were created not much later. Yeah. They knew.
Quote:On the other hand, you are the one insisting that A/M's were the only classes intended for elestaves for all of maple eternity. You don't know whether or not the creators were aware that there might even be a .0000001% possibility of a new elemental mage class that might have use of the elestave, and in the case that there were a new elemental class the creators would gladly say the elestave also includes them in intended group of classes. The burden is clearly on you to prove something you can't prove.
Which implies a logical fallacy. Argument from Ignorance is not an argument. I can raise the burden of proof so astronomically high that no one would be able to satisfy them. Even the court definition for a felony conviction - "Beyond a reasonable doubt" - falls completely short of your 0.000001% possibility. Who could possibly be that correct?
I could just as well say that how can you know that we can't know? Are you reading my mind? How do you know I'm not a mindreader? How can you know that we can't know that there was a .000001% possibility of the class? Why are you denying my knowledge over theirs? And why should I believe you? Why are you on this site anyway? Do you really trust my extractions? How can you know my extractions are reliable or unreliable? How can you know anything with absolute certainty? You can't.
Sounds like you really need to learn about basic argumentation and philosophical arguments. Your argument is absurd.