Ragnarok is stupid.

[Izziee]

I don't remember starting with this weapon on PS4, I don't even know why I have it, and yes, I KNOW I don't have to use it, but it's ridiculously OP and feels like it makes other swords pointless.

[CatPerson]

Originally posted by Soulgain:

I mean, Ragnarok is only one of few(more like the only with this high damage potential) weapons that can hit this hard in the endgame as well. When you get Rare Metal accessory, you literally can equip it and warp in close range for 30-50k++ damage, depending on the enemy weakness and distance, this is pretty absurd numbers and it is the most powerful thing for pretty much entire game, I just prefer not to use it however. Yes there is Zwill Crossblades and stuff like that, but nothing comes close when you warp attack things and in many cases DPS will be lower.

Rare metal breaks Noct's Limit at the cost of essentially all defense and massively lowered HP's. So at least it has a trade off, unlike some of the other OP'd items like the Ring and Ragnarok.

But yeah...anything that breaks dmg. limit is "overpowered" in this game, included Magic. :D

[Entropie]

So the google dictionary says:

noun: hypothetical; plural noun: hypotheticals

1.
a hypothetical proposition or statement.
"officials refuse to discuss military policy except in coy hypotheticals"

Never said that the word is unrelated, but it is not the same word either and can not simply be exchanged.
Now, I assumed that your mistake was confusing the two words since you suddenly started using hypotheses rather than hypothetical but it may also be possible that you actually meant that "a hypothetical can not be used to prove anything" in which case your mistake is simply that that statement is false.
Thought experiments are hypotheticals for example, which can be used to prove scientific statements.
Even in mathematics we use hypotheticals in indirect proofs to literally prove things.

@ everyone else: sorry for the tangent, you know, forum discussion stuff.

[𝕊𝕙𝕒𝕚𝕕𝕠𝕟]

Originally posted by Entropie:

But calling people spoiled children on the internet will only get you so far, that is really par for the course.

If you really want to convince maybe calling them entitled will do the trick.

Or behave like an actual adult and refrein from such statements altogether but hey, you do you.

How about try to understand the whole, instead of focusing in just a few words and take it out of context?

What I said is when devs change these optional content because some people complain about how it spoil their games, they are behaving like bad parents spoiling their kids.

So, do you feel yourself more “adult” than me, now?

[Gigadesu!]

Don't use it, I didn't.

[Entropie]

Originally posted by Shaidon:

How about try to understand the whole, instead of focusing in just a few words and take it out of context?

What I said is when devs change these optional content because some people complain about how it spoil their games, they are behaving like bad parents spoiling their kids.

So, do you feel yourself more “adult” than me, now?

What is there to not understand, you don't want devs to actually cater to other people unless what those people want aligns with your own opinion.
But because stating it that way may seem a bit egoistic you use descriptions like "spoiled kids" to give a negative connotation for people with said differing opinion.
Now that argument is easy enough to understand, but in order for it to also convince, the reader has to adopt your notion that the other people are spoiled kids and thus their reasons and opinions can be disregarded. As you may have already guessed, I did not adopt said notion and was therefore left utterly unconvinced even though I did understand the argument.

[Fathom]

If the combat were good in this game, Ragnarok would be dumb. As it stands...it's an excellent way to save some time IRL if you don't want to hold down attack/dodge for 20 minutes while watching particle effects.

[Fathom]

Originally posted by Spawk:

Originally posted by Fathom:

If the combat were good in this game, Ragnarok would be dumb. As it stands...it's an excellent way to save some time IRL if you don't want to hold down attack/dodge for 20 minutes while watching particle effects.

But now you're holding a different button to warp strike with even more particle effects.

Thus my point. If you enjoy what FFXV passes off as a combat system, I can see why spaming warp strike with an OP sword is undesirable. If, however, you got tired of this system when Dragon Age: Inquisition took it mainstream a few years back, it's a phenominal time saver:

"Proper" swords = 10 minutes in combat.

Spamnarok = 10 seconds.

[Fathom]

Originally posted by Spawk:

Gotta extend that gameplay any way they can.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1326765383

[Entropie]

That is Omega, not Omega weapon which is actually a difference ^^

[Soulgain]

Originally posted by CatPerson:

Originally posted by Soulgain:

I mean, Ragnarok is only one of few(more like the only with this high damage potential) weapons that can hit this hard in the endgame as well. When you get Rare Metal accessory, you literally can equip it and warp in close range for 30-50k++ damage, depending on the enemy weakness and distance, this is pretty absurd numbers and it is the most powerful thing for pretty much entire game, I just prefer not to use it however. Yes there is Zwill Crossblades and stuff like that, but nothing comes close when you warp attack things and in many cases DPS will be lower.

Rare metal breaks Noct's Limit at the cost of essentially all defense and massively lowered HP's. So at least it has a trade off, unlike some of the other OP'd items like the Ring and Ragnarok.

But yeah...anything that breaks dmg. limit is "overpowered" in this game, included Magic. :D

I mean, exactly. I think there is a reason why I decided to do all the content without touching The Ring, and Ragnarok. And while there is a trade off, dead enemy wont bite you back.. xD
Also, I tested it very superficially with RM equipped, so I'm pretty sure with some optimization done, one can reach absolutely disgusting numbers.

While there is nothing wrong if someone wants to use it, I personally feel I'd be more enjoying the fact that I have it, if I'd have to actually work for it and get it through in-game means, and not just having it in my inventory from the beginning.

[Toasty Ramen]

Just don't use the weapon

[𝕊𝕙𝕒𝕚𝕕𝕠𝕟]

Originally posted by Entropie:

What is there to not understand, you don't want devs to actually cater to other people unless what those people want aligns with your own opinion.
But because stating it that way may seem a bit egoistic you use descriptions like "spoiled kids" to give a negative connotation for people with said differing opinion.
Now that argument is easy enough to understand, but in order for it to also convince, the reader has to adopt your notion that the other people are spoiled kids and thus their reasons and opinions can be disregarded. As you may have already guessed, I did not adopt said notion and was therefore left utterly unconvinced even though I did understand the argument.

And still taking things out of context. OK, fine, there is no way to convince you to my “egoistic opinion”.

I guess that whenever you see someone of any age, making a mistake, and you want to help because you believe that your way is better, because others believe that is the right thing to do, if that person pull out that “respect my opinion” card, you will just leave it be.
Selfish me that want other gamer like me to have a better self control in the matter of optional features.

[Your Soul]

I just found out how great it is for farming <3. Yeah most of the weapons in this game is bland and boring. Ragnorak is the way to go after beating the game or tired of the combat.

[Entropie]

Originally posted by Shaidon:

I guess that whenever you see someone of any age, making a mistake, and you want to help because you believe that your way is better, because others believe that is the right thing to do, if that person pull out that “respect my opinion” card, you will just leave it be.
Selfish me that want other gamer like me to have a better self control in the matter of optional features.

If you truely wanted to be helpful you would have seen that the op already said in the very first post of this thread that they are aware of the option to just not use the weapon and thus reconsidered posting that very "solution" in the first place.

[Sishiya]

Originally posted by Entropie:

So the google dictionary says:

noun: hypothetical; plural noun: hypotheticals

1.
a hypothetical proposition or statement.
"officials refuse to discuss military policy except in coy hypotheticals"

Never said that the word is unrelated, but it is not the same word either and can not simply be exchanged.
Now, I assumed that your mistake was confusing the two words since you suddenly started using hypotheses rather than hypothetical but it may also be possible that you actually meant that "a hypothetical can not be used to prove anything" in which case your mistake is simply that that statement is false.
Thought experiments are hypotheticals for example, which can be used to prove scientific statements.
Even in mathematics we use hypotheticals in indirect proofs to literally prove things.

@ everyone else: sorry for the tangent, you know, forum discussion stuff.

I tried to be understanding, but since you apparently want to double down, here we go:

The first clue as to your error should be obvious: using a word to define itself. The definition that you are using here uses hypothetical as an adjective to help define the noun. So, what is the definition of hypothetical as an adjective?

You used google's dictionary? Cool, I'll do the same:

adjective
adjective: hypothetical

1. of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis.
"that option is merely hypothetical at this juncture"
supposed but not necessarily real or true.
"the hypothetical tenth planet"
synonyms: theoretical, speculative, conjectured, conjectural, notional, suppositional, supposed, putative, assumed; academic
"the scenario I suggested was strictly hypothetical"
antonyms: actual
Logic
denoting or containing a proposition of the logical form if p then q.

noun
noun: hypothetical; plural noun: hypotheticals

1. a hypothetical proposition or statement.

So, you knowingly skipped the entire first definition in order to fixate on the second definition (noun) that, literally, refers you back to the first (adjective). Granted, since you were talking about the usage as a noun, I'm not really slamming you for that, only that when the definition was circular and pointed you back to the adjective, you chose to ignore that since it quite clearly shows you how wrong you were.

The term "hypothesis" and "hypothetical" have the same meaning; the usage of hypothetical is primarily the adjective form of "hypothesis" while the noun form is generally a shorthanded usage denoting the hypothesis in general as an object.

Thought experiments are -not- used to prove or disprove scientific statements. Nor can they be used to conclusively prove anything in mathematics; the use of hypotheses in mathematics is limited to the scope of the problem and are utilized on a temporary assumption of truth until they are found to be true or false and -any- conclusion carries that caveat of assumption with it: the conclusion is true ONLY if all hypotheses used are also true.

Language barriers I can give you some leeway on, but not logic and math. If you claim to solve actual math problems utilizing only hypotheses, then you are a terrible mathematician.

In retrospect, I should have stuck to my original conclusion of engaging you: you weren't worth the time after all.

To everyone else, my apologies for the nerdspeak and temporary derailment. I'm done.