Please raise the combat and weaopn skill max merits

[Alhanelem]

See, this is what I mean. Your arguments are nonsense.

There is nothing nonsensical about my arguments. You'll have to explain exactly what doesn't make sense to you, then I'll be happy to elaborate on it so that it does make sense to you.

Meriting a weapon skill does not make you the best at anything.

When I talk about being the best at eveverything, I mean from a statistical standpoint, not a player skill standpoint.

No. They don't create choices. They necessitate them. There is a difference.

No, there isn't a difference. Necessitating the choices is the whole point. If there are no limits, you don't have to make any choices- you can just choose "everything." Having the limits in place means your decisions have weight- they matter. With no limits, your choices don't matter, because you will just get everything eventually.

Beyond this, merits are not permanent. You can remove them and level something else up instead. So if you decide you just can't live without Merit X, you can remove merit Y that you don't use so much and replace it. Thus, you still have the freedom of choice- you simply can't have it all simultaneously.

Those rules do not facilitate nor exclude choice and are therefor irrelevant to the conversation. Try harder.

Okay: you just countered your own argument about limits only being destructive to a game. The limits I described you just admitted are not destructive to those games.

This limit does and you are wrong.

No, it doesn't, and I'm not wrong. I have an opinion which you happen to disagree with. This does not make it right or wrong. Again, you declaring something wrong does not make it so.

[FrankReynolds]

When I talk about being the best at eveverything, I mean from a statistical standpoint, not a player skill standpoint.

And I don't necessarily mean either of the two. There is a third and glaring item that you neglected and that is the million or so pieces of gear weapons and spells that can be used to far more effectively differentiate yourself. It takes weeks, months, years to acquire the gear and build the skills to be the best. That should not be undermined by an arbitrary limitation put on a skill that takes a couple of hours to cap.

You should be the best <insert job here> because you have put in the work and learned the job. Not because the other guy happens to be just as good at a few other jobs too. If he wants to work harder than you and practice more, then he should be better than you. You should not get a free pass just because you don't play many jobs.

No, there isn't a difference. Necessitating the choices is the whole point. If there are no limits, you don't have to make any choices- you can just choose "everything." Having the limits in place means your decisions have weight- they matter. With no limits, your choices don't matter, because you will just get everything eventually.

And this is where the nonsense comes in. You don't understand the fundamental difference between choosing to do something because either because you want to do it or you don't and being told that you must choose because you cannot do both.

The fact of the matter is that given the choice to merit all of the weapon skills, most people will not. Most people will merit the ones that they feel they need and ignore the rest.

They will make that decision without any intervention. They don't need you or anyone else to tell them to make that choice.

The guy who merits the club weapon skill? He will still be a rare bird. He will still feel just as special.

Just like you are a rare bird on PUP. Go look at the census. Thousands of people have the ability to level and play pup as much as they want. Yet most people do not. Pup is a horribly misunderstood and underestimated job. Should we limit the number of jobs that you can level to 99? How do you think that would affect Pup? I think you know already that that change would further marginalize that job. Just like you know that this cap further marginalizes less desirable jobs.

Something tells me that if pups used bells as their main weapon and you could only cap one skill, you would be pretty pissed that you had to choose bell or have a crappy pup.

So stop pretending that you don't understand why this cap hurts and annoys other people. As far as I am concerned, there are a million reasons to raise or remove the cap and the only reason you have given to keep it is because it makes you feel special.

Beyond this, merits are not permanent. You can remove them and level something else up instead. So if you decide you just can't live without Merit X, you can remove merit Y that you don't use so much and replace it. Thus, you still have the freedom of choice- you simply can't have it all simultaneously.

So in essence, this cap exists simply to annoy people and really creates none of the diversity that you claim it does.

Okay: you just countered your own argument about limits only being destructive to a game. The limits I described you just admitted are not destructive to those games.

I would hardly compare meriting a weapon skill to running behind the line of scrimmage and beheading the quarterback before the snap. If you really think that the two things are the same, then you are probably better off reading up on the history of the sport and finding out why the rule exists before you continue.

Whats more, those rules aren't in place to foster choice (the topic of discussion). They are there to keep the game fair for all parties. Being able to merit a weapon skill doesn't create an advantage. If someone doesn't have the weapon skill, then the group simply brings someone who does and the outcome is the same. Monsters don't die faster. They just get killed by different people / jobs.

No, it doesn't, and I'm not wrong. I have an opinion which you happen to disagree with. This does not make it right or wrong. Again, you declaring something wrong does not make it so.

Your opinion is wrong. Most opinions are wrong. Having an opinion and being wrong are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they often go hand in hand.