Jump to content

TUMBLEWEEDS...


Recommended Posts

Thought the shell IS renewable. You just have to wait for the earthquakes, or make them happen.

Shells are renewable if you keep the Slurtle dens intact, Slurtles will respawn.

As for now, there you can't obtain the slurtle shell without using console commands or a mod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought the shell IS renewable. You just have to wait for the earthquakes, or make them happen.
Shells are renewable if you keep the Slurtle dens intact, Slurtles will respawn. As for now, there you can't obtain the slurtle shell without using console commands or a mod.

 

Oh, My Gawd! Oh, My Gawd! Oh, My Gawd! Oh, My Gawd!

 

A CIVILIZED CONVERSATION BETWEEN THESE TWO!!

 

This breaks the internet more than Leo DeCaprio getting an Oscar!!

 

O__O

 

Congratulations!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, My Gawd! Oh, My Gawd! Oh, My Gawd! Oh, My Gawd!

 

A CIVILIZED CONVERSATION BETWEEN THESE TWO!!

 

This breaks the internet more than Leo DeCaprio getting an Oscar!!

 

O__O

 

Congratulations!!

lu2gX5f.jpg

Who said I can't be civilized? After all, I do have a sane mind.

Plus, I can't take you seriously when you put and sort of O__O in your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to on topic things.

I'm still frustrated with the fact that gems exclusive in the underground and ruins areas can be dropped by tumble weeds but bunny puff and slurtle shells can't...

 

does this mean that these gems exist on the surface? (or existED in the surface? A great war broke out didn't it... the Ancients and Nightmares?)

 

So tumble weeds could provide clues to the up (is it up yet?) and coming (hopefully) "Through the Ages" Update/DLC?

 

Mysteries...

 

 

O___O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still frustrated with the fact that gems exclusive in the underground and ruins areas can be dropped by tumble weeds but bunny puff and slurtle shells can't...
 

I know, but hey, that's why we have community mods, right?

As for the gems, yeah, they are exclusive, which sucks, because I'd like to see more threats (as in possibly more hounds considering the only hounds are red and blue, yet Klei could have green, yellow, and orange hounds too spawn form Hound Mounds and/or hound attacks, considering hound attacks will be bigger per amount of players.

does this mean that these gems exist on the surface? (or existED in the surface? A great war broke out didn't it... the Ancients and Nightmares?)

Possibly. But we have to wait for the group to hide the information in their folder of DS Storyline Stuffs.

 

So tumble weeds could provide clues to the up (is it up yet?) and coming (hopefully) "Through the Ages" Update/DLC?   Mysteries...
 

Well, we know the "New Reign" thing, can't say much about it.

What if we could get secret papers from tumbleweeds (like how sometimes when birds flew off in DS RoG, you could see secret numbers which eventually leaked DST being confirmed.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shells are renewable if you keep the Slurtle dens intact, Slurtles will respawn.

As for now, there you can't obtain the slurtle shell without using console commands or a mod.

Wait... That's my point exactly! So...? Wut?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That means you and he have the same idea and/or are reiterating that line of thinking...

Then what's his reason for quoting me? I mean, he wrote it as if making a point contrast to mune, yet writes exactly what I'm meaning to say. I just... Can't even comprehend \/_\/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@XirmiX, Ugh, sometimes...

 

Here's how you got here:

 

jbeetle implies that cave items shouldn't be in tumbleweeds

XirmiX says foliage (cave item) is in tumbleweeds

<blah blah blah bunny puffs blah blah blah>

Dipps says foliage can be in tumbleweeds because otherwise it is not renewable, but the same is not true for bunny puffs, which are renewable normally. BUT he also says that it could make sense to add bunny puffs and lightbulbs until caves, because you can't get them otherwise.

Pyro points out that foliage being renewable through tumbleweeds has no point if you don't have caves, because you need slurtle shells.

 

This last point has two interpetations, neither of which Pyro explicitly favored.

 

1) Slurtle shells should be added in addition to bunny puffs and light bulbs because if foliage is renewable through tumbleweeds, the only reason to have it be renewable would be to make potted ferns, which also need caves otherwise.

 

2) Because slurtle shells are not in tumbleweeds, foliage being renewable through them has no significance in terms of game design, so that does not support adding bunny puffs or light bulbs. This argument also holds because other cave-only items currently obtainable in tumbleweeds suffer the same problem: you can't do anything with them without caves.

 

Based on the subsequent verbal meandering, I'm guessing he favored interpretation two, because otherwise he would be agreeing with you.

 

As a side note... please reread this statement and realize how silly it is:

so you're making the same point as before, and so am I and technically am still winning in the argument.

If two people are making the same point at each other over and over, then obviously both believe they are right. You don't win an argument if no ground was shifted; you either have to convince your opponent or some third party, you can't just declare yourself right. That's a fallacy (arguably "argument from ignorance").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a side note... please reread this statement and realize how silly it is:

If two people are making the same point at each other over and over, then obviously both believe they are right. You don't win an argument if no ground was shifted; you either have to convince your opponent or some third party, you can't just declare yourself right. That's a fallacy (arguably "argument from ignorance").

That is arguable. If one person makes points that are legit, while the other person used points that are up right ridiculous or does not make their point clear enough or their point is not as strong as the opponent's point, but denies what the other person is saying, even though they cannot do so arguably, the person making sense but being denied by the other is technically winning. Sometimes people do not want to give up their point, even when proven wrong and that is what makes a problem in the discussion and the person denying the truth an idiot. Of course, so far in this discussion (I'd say due to more people participating and not just 2 people here discussing it), the discussion has went on forward, with points being made and legit reasons being given. Same as I, when proven wrong agreed to what the person who proved me wrong instead of denying that person with stupid reasons, which would not make sense. Get me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is arguable. If one person makes points that are legit, while the other person used points that are up right ridiculous or does not make their point clear enough or their point is not as strong as the opponent's point, but denies what the other person is saying, even though they cannot do so arguably, the person making sense but being denied by the other is technically winning. Sometimes people do not want to give up their point, even when proven wrong and that is what makes a problem in the discussion and the person denying the truth an idiot. Of course, so far in this discussion (I'd say due to more people participating and not just 2 people here discussing it), the discussion has went on forward, with points being made and legit reasons being given. Same as I, when proven wrong agreed to what the person who proved me wrong instead of denying that person with stupid reasons, which would not make sense. Get me?

Technically, you both make no sense, because this thread (or forum, if you will) is not made with the intention of someone winning any debate. It's made as a question followed by an example that solidifies the question, and either you or Pyromailmann have stronger arguments than each other, that makes no sense with the thread's point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not debates that add nothing to the topic.

Debating whether something should or should not be in the game. Hmm... I think that does add something to the topic! That can determine some part of structure in the game! Like, if a dev sees a reason for having something in the game more as to why it shouldn't be there, then that changes something within the game. I'm not quite sure why this isn't in Suggestions & Feedback, because it seems as that kind of a topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that does add something to the topic! 

>.< nnngh! Same goes for Foliage, but it is still dropped by tumbleweeds, so you're making the same point as before, and so am I and technically am still winning in the argument.

 

 

Talking about winning the argument, then repeating yourself over and over. That doesn't add anything.

Ugh. Drop it, I'm out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

×
  • Create New...