Difference between revisions of "Talk:Nature Affinity"

Latest revision as of 05:34, 7 July 2012

Ain't No Leak!

There should definitely be a notice that information on these sets was available prior to the sets' availability for testing, but "leak" isn't the word for it, since that implies Paragon Studios screwed up and sent us information ahead of time that they didn't want us to have. In this case, the power names were discovered through hacking, and the power information was revealed by linking them in the chat window.

I'm not sure how to best phrase it. I mean, we could say "was discovered through hacking," but then again, Titan Network knows about even more Power Sets for the same reason, and we're certainly not going to be blabbing about what the devs don't want people to know. --GuyPerfect 14:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Why specify a how at all? Can't we just say: "Information on this power set was discovered during Issue 23's Beta and for a period it's powers were linkable in chat. Developers disabled this ability in time and removed forum posts relating to the set." I mean, brevity is the... some famous quotation here. Also, not to kick the dead horse, but NO ONE can confirm that any "hacking" occurred at all. It isn't unlikely in the least, as it is the most probable reason things were discovered, but it isn't the only way. —  Talk · Cont 14:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Leak just means leak. It doesn't have any negative or positive connotations. They leaked it by not being obsessive about their data protection, players leaked it by being obsessive about changes in the game. ~ AGGE talk/cons 18:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's say you want to crash a party. If you tipped a punch bowl upside-down, spilling the punch all over the floor, would you say that it fell out due to a leak? Probably not. The punch came out not because of any lack of precautions on the part of the host or the bowl's manufacturer, but because a third party (that would be you in this analogy, you renegade you) took the actions necessary to cause it to spill. The fact that the host didn't bolt the punch bowl to the table in no way makes the situation more of a leak than it already isn't.

In this case, we've got bozos tipping over punch bowls, and if we call it a "leak", we suggest that Paragon Studios was using a defective bowl or paying insufficient attention to what they were doing. That's happened before: remember Beast Mastery (and Sorcery —  Talk · Cont)? That was a leak. This ain't no leak. --GuyPerfect 19:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As 37 says, there's no proof of hacking. Though it is pretty much the only valid option, there are people insisting otherwise, so stop insisting your view is the only view.

The set was leaked, it doesn't matter how it got leaked, it was leaked. Paragon has ways to stop things from being linkable, they didn't use it in that instance. Paragon can refrain from preloading data so far ahead of schedule, they didn't do that in this instance. Players poke in the game files regularly. Things get leaked. It doesn't matter who did it, the end result is a leak. Like I said before, leak just means leak. ~ AGGE talk/cons 04:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

While I don't agree with Guy on his obsession with the "hacking" aspect... I do have to side with him on the meaning of the term "leak." To me, leak implies a certain amount of "mea culpa" on the part of wherever something leaked from. It says that someone made an oops (IMO). In this case, it was either a PiggDiver, or someone with way too much time on their hands checking on what types of fun nature-related possible power names might just link in chat (and psionic). In either case, it was due to someone's industriousness (or rules violations) that opened the floodgate, not really an issue with Paragon per se. As such, I would advise the word "leak" be removed. Beyond that, I don't really care what it says in the Historical section. —  Talk · Cont 05:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(Unindenting)

Suggested wording: "Power information for Nature Affinity was temporarily available on the Beta Server early in the design process (during Issue 23's Beta) and was subsequently restricted from view until the set was officially announced." —  Talk · Cont 05:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)