Alloys Like Meals

[Vlad 73]

...

this insult was under condition, and it met, i do mean it.

Seriously vlad... are you this egotistical all the time? Why are you being such a dick?

why not explain yourself.. instead of just cursing for no reason.

[puxapuak 232]

why not explain yourself.. instead of just cursing for no reason.

I did explain myself and you didn't even acknowledge it. And where exactly did I curse?

But seriously, just because someone disagrees with you does not give you the right to belittle them. That's just asking to get banned. Question yourself first, consider whether it's maybe possible that you are the one making the mistake.

[Just_Another_Guy_:) 1,066]

this insult was under condition, and it met, i do mean it.

That has anything to do with anything? It doesn't matters how you insulted someone, it doesn't matters if you mean it or not, it matters that you did insulted someone. That's what i'm saying you shouldn't do.

I did explain myself and you didn't even acknowledge it. And where exactly did I curse?

But seriously, just because someone disagrees with you does not give you the right to belittle them. That's just asking to get banned. Question yourself first, consider whether it's maybe possible that you are the one making the mistake.

+10

[Vlad 73]

I did explain myself and you didn't even acknowledge it.

"Seriously vlad... are you this egotistical all the time?"

you didn't explain why my actions are egoistical..

And where exactly did I curse?

Calling me dick.. or it wan't english?

[puxapuak 232]

"Seriously vlad... are you this egotistical all the time?"

you didn't explain why my actions are egoistical..

Calling me dick.. or it wan't english?

Go back and read your own thread.

I didn't really call you a dick. You were acting like a dick (calling people whiny babies?). So I suggested you stop acting like a dick. I don't think that you are a dick (but you're making me rethink my position). I do think you are being quite egotistical but I was curious if you always are or if it was just a recent thing for this thread.

Either way I deleted it because JAG said it better.

[Vlad 73]

Anyway last word from me:

I'm suggested an idea, explained every bit of it, provided lots of examples, answered any question over and over again.

And what I hear from ECC: you don't understand, it's bad, not going to work. over and over again.

No explanation no anything.

This is what is being egoistic.

I sick of this topic and ain't gonna say any more here.

P.S of course it's easy to tell others to rethink what they said, but don't forget to do it as well

[Treyflix 277]

Vlad, what did I tell you? let the thread die and try again later.

I'm not impressed at ALL with how ECC and Pux are handling this -which is even made worse by the fact that they are experienced and respected (respected by me at least) users- but you are doing nothing to help your idea by arguing with them in a insulting way. We both know you have logic on your side so why not just debate politely?

Thanks for trying to break them up JAG. I don' know why Pux of all people is fighting. Or why everyone hates this idea

[ECC 508]

If i've insulted you, That I am sorry for. beyond that, i thought it was a debate on alloys. :/

one where we kept saying the same damned thing over and over and over expecting different results.(definition of insanity ironically)

the idea of adding a dozen alloys to hide some randomly generated super alloys is great, however they way he keeps going about it implies that you can remove an impurity from a metal by continuously adding more impurities. Which to reasonable knowledge does not work except in very extreme cases. once its in there, its in unless you know some advanced methods of breaking down alloys. some are easy and just require a little bit of heat, others require methods not available to smiths of that age. my point was that if your test alloy was 'craptastic', then you cant use it anymore as its just... well, crap. a single durability on a pick is a nigh useless pick.

his point, what i disagree with, is that you can use something over and over recycling it

im all for recycling, just not when its mechanically impossible/improbable

again, till everything blew up, I thought it was a civil debate.

[Leosallespoli 338]

I will try to explain my view on why this isn't for TFC, first of all the base metals are to be believable and realistic that is one of the reasons we got real ores here and not "copper ore", "zinc ore" etc. So then you have some alloys like brass, bronze, real alloys that are historically useful for civilizations and some that... well I don't know how one could make a tool out of it (looking at rose gold) but still, real. They were necessary for to have tiers, like higher technology in TFC, it is a common-sense that games like these NEEDS tiers, and they were made so that you could achieve higher tiers without having all of the below tiers. And a final tier was needed, that felt almost unachievable, so it was made the red and blue steel, made-belief alloys to be the highest tier possible.

So you simply can't mix ores/ingots together and hope for an alloy to come up. I'll not get into the chemistry and physics of it and say you just can't, the molecules won't fill the gaps...

Why is food giving you those powers, well I guess that otherwise you wouldn't cook and just eat it raw... So it draws you into this feature. While metallurgy is necessary, you have to get into this feature, so Bioxx can explore that however he wants it and not necessarily give you little bread crumbs to attract you to it.

In Harvest Moon it was different, there where no buffs for you to cook but even so you were excited to find new recipes, but that was a whole different genre and a different community, you can't expect hardcore survivalists to cook a dish in the middle of the jungle without saying to them "there is a benefit with it"

[Treyflix 277]

Thank you ECC (& Leo) for returning to civil conversation. Unless some one has something to add in a calm and positive manner, I suggest we let this thread be laid to rest.

Unless you're feeling lucky... well? Are you?

~Clint eastwood quote FtW

[puxapuak 232]

Unless some one has something to add in a calm and positive manner, I suggest we let this thread be laid to rest.

Calm?

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqgJc7DaDU4

[Srgnoodles 1,030]

Alloys Like Meals,

i read this, and the first thing that popped into my head was eddible alloys

i think there may be something wrong with me

[Just_Another_Guy_:) 1,066]

Calm?

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqgJc7DaDU4

And that's a double win for Puxapuak, both for the owning and the awesome song :3 *rises Puxa's hand as the crowd claps*

Alloys Like Meals,

i read this, and the first thing that popped into my head was eddible alloys

i think there may be something wrong with me

Unless we have the same problem, no, you are perfectly normal :

I'm happy to see this changed to completely normal and peaceful derailment

[zoran 31]

.. So, 100% of iron is weaker and slower than 110% of iron + other metals? WHAT SORCERY IS THIS?!

Technically speaking, 100% iron is weaker than say 97.9% iron and 2.1% carbon, or even 89.5% iron and 10.5% chromium.

Those alloys are called carbon steel and stainless steel. In fact, quite a few alloys are stronger than their base metals (brass, bronze, even sterling silver)

[Srgnoodles 1,030]

Unless we have the same problem, no, you are perfectly normal :

I'm happy to see this changed to completely normal and peaceful derailment

oh trust me, i am anything but normal

Normality is boring and Sanity is overrated

and yes, there seems to be a distinct lack of argument going on in this thread, this is a good thing

[Just_Another_Guy_:) 1,066]

Then we are both crazy? Huh... Not surprising at all :

Technically speaking, 100% iron is weaker than say 97.9% iron and 2.1% carbon, or even 89.5% iron and 10.5% chromium.

Those alloys are called carbon steel and stainless steel. In fact, quite a few alloys are stronger than their base metals (brass, bronze, even sterling silver)

It was ironic. I was making a joke on something i misunderstood in the moment: i thought the sum of the materials he wrote in the spoiler was 110% instead of 100%, so i was making fun of that mistake by saying that an ingot of iron will obviously be much weaker than an ingot of an iron alloy somehow the same size of the previous. As renadi said in response:

Edit: JAG that's how you get the double durability and speed, it's ultradense blackholealloy magics!!!

But yeah, as i said, it was a misunderstanding.

[Pakislav 120]

I don't think this is a good idea from coding perspective, as every possible alloy (No matter how sensless) would require it's own recipes and sets of tools/weapons/armors etc.

So it would be too much work for very little gain, or actuall loss of belivability.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread and missed Dunks (And other people) similar responce.

[Just_Another_Guy_:) 1,066]

I don't think this is a good idea from coding perspective, as every possible alloy (No matter how sensless) would require it's own recipes and sets of tools/weapons/armors etc.

So it would be too much work for very little gain, or actuall loss of belivability.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread and missed Dunks (And other people) similar responce.

It's okay, you just have to get used not to post before you find a BIG derail in the thread. At least a page of derailment, and your thread is officialy dead :

[killster550 401]

hey hey hey, you guys derailed my naval suggestions for about 2 pages and i kicked it back in, it depends on the OP anyway, if its worthy of mention, it will revive in due time