That's not really what I'm saying, but even if we look at it the way you are, what's wrong with that reason? It's their game, they made it, they chose how the systems worked.
Lots of people have most if not every job now. Gear and merits are the last things that distinguish one player from another beyond "skill" (as if this game requires it). The Job specific merits and the weaponskill merits are basically the ones that indicate which jobs you prefer to play most. I don't think that should change.
I wouldn't fight 5-10 more points to spend, as that wouldn't take this away. I would and will fight being able to max out all/most of them because it would negatively impact the system.
But this sentence says you DO understand it. The "rest of the game" doesn't offer much oppertunity to specialize or get personal. Merit points are the primary point of where customization comes into play. Are you suggesting that if we have one customizable feature, we need to have XYZ number of customizable features before we call it "customization?"I don't understand the thinking behind merits being about specialization when the rest of the game seems to be the opposite of that
What makes the slippery slope a fallacy is that logic can't determine (without additional proveable premises) that a bunch of unknown, unspecified things will lead in a chain to a particular final result. It's not that it would or would not happen, its that the outcome cannot be proven- thus it does not improve an argument by itself.And the slippery slope? There's a reason that's listed under fallacies.
If you want to ignore all the above, then I'll just make one thing clear: I cannot support a vague topic title with an accompanying first post saying "pretty simple." It needs to specify how many points should be added and the reasoning for it. The OP has done none of these things, and thus cannot convince me that a change is necessary or beneficial.


Reply With Quote