Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Proposal: Explosive Vest Version 2

Failed, 1-10. Josh

Adminned at 13 Jul 2011 23:20:03 UTC

If the Proposal titled “Time to Crate” failed, this Proposal does nothing.

Add a new Weapon to the list of weapons at the bottom of “Weapons”

Explosive Vest. - Can be used to target any 2x2 square grouping of Arena Squares that includes the Square the Attacker is on.  Every gladiator on one of these 4 squares dies.

Fixed.

Comments

Yoda:

12-07-2011 23:15:17 UTC

imperial I don’t think the first sentence is necessary, but it doesn’t do any harm.

aguydude:

12-07-2011 23:21:33 UTC

@Yoda: Yeah, I copy-pasted from my original proposal.

Bucky:

12-07-2011 23:38:31 UTC

against Still too easy

scshunt:

13-07-2011 00:01:41 UTC

and still doesn’t go away when used. against

aguydude:

13-07-2011 00:08:36 UTC

@coppro: Yes it does.  It kills the user.  “When a Gladiator stops Fighting and begins Resting, they lose any Weapons they were carrying.”

mideg:

13-07-2011 00:29:42 UTC

against Now the wording is really bad, since it targets only one square in the selected 2x2 squares:

“Every gladiator on one of these 4 squares dies.”

It says explicitly that every gladiator on ONE of these 4 squares dies. How is selected, which square?

aguydude:

13-07-2011 00:44:20 UTC

@Mideg: I think that’s being nitpicky.  There are two possible interpretations, and yours doesn’t really make that much sense.

mideg:

13-07-2011 01:00:30 UTC

@aguydude: I cannot see two possible interpretations. I can guess what the author tried to word, but this sentence (at least to me) clearly means something else.

The original wording, in my opinion, was correct or at least allowed for the intended interpretation. This, on the other hand, is clear to me: All Gladiators on exactly one of the four Squares die, though it is not mentioned how the affected Square is selected.

(It should probably read: “Every Gladiator standing on any of the targeted Squares dies.”)

But I bow to the majority, of course. ;-)

aguydude:

13-07-2011 01:42:29 UTC

“Every gladiator on one of these 4 squares dies.” can be interpreted as

Every gladiator that fulfills the condition “on one of these 4 squares” dies.

Gladiators that fulfill the condition “on zero of these 4 squares” do not die.

Darknight: HE/HIM

13-07-2011 01:43:43 UTC

against

Yoda:

13-07-2011 01:46:54 UTC

I’ll have to agree with mideg here.  This requires tricky wording, but even properly worded it is overpowered.  Basically, this amounts to gaining up to 3 frags then returning to the safety of outside the arena without any penalty (besides losing any other weapons).

aguydude:

13-07-2011 01:53:37 UTC

Getting kills via Shove is incredibly easy.  I feel like Weapons should be at least as effective as Shove, considering how much tougher they are to obtain.

scshunt:

13-07-2011 02:32:30 UTC

Actually what wording change was made at all from the original? As near as I can tell, this is exactly the same as the earlier proposal.

aguydude:

13-07-2011 02:46:53 UTC

Previously, it used “any” instead of “every.”  The latter fix was proposed by HKoD.

Josh: RICHARDO VON NESTOR HE/HIM

13-07-2011 06:06:25 UTC

against per mideg.

Kevan: HE/HIM

13-07-2011 09:16:33 UTC

against Per Mideg; too easy to interpret this as “kill an adjacent player for 1AP and keep the weapon”.

Ely:

13-07-2011 10:54:22 UTC

against per mideg. Don’t desist. “on those 4 squares” might work.
An arrow to make you feel better: arrow

Prince Anduril:

13-07-2011 11:45:37 UTC

I studied logic at university. Unfortunately ‘any’ and ‘every’ actually mean exactly the same thing, logically speaking.

A further consequence of this is that “Can be used to target any (every) 2x2 square” could equally be interpreted as all 9 squares surrounding and including the attacker’s.

I believe the phrase you may be looking for is:

Explosive Vest - Can be used to target a single 2x2 square grouping of Arena Squares, as long as that 2x2 square includes the Square the Attacker is on. All the gladiators within this grouping of squares die.

The argument that this weapon is too powerful does still stand, however. So I will have to vote against

mideg:

13-07-2011 11:49:34 UTC

Thanks Anduril.

I might vote for if your phrase is used.

Ely:

13-07-2011 15:42:07 UTC

PrinceAnduril:
Yes, but the common English usage of “any” includes “One of those” as a meaning, doesn’t it? I think so, but I’m not native.
We should probably add it in the Appendix.
I would definetly vote FOR with such a change.

Ely:

13-07-2011 15:42:28 UTC

Prince Anduril*

Blacky:

13-07-2011 17:27:01 UTC

against due to the wording issues