A Little Pain with my Pleasure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jynx

Why do you use someones raiding history as a measuring stick of their accomplishments and skill as a gamer? It's about as arbitrary as throwing darts at a wall, for all we know a person could have carried a group of morons through a hectic situation, or be a braindead sod who got carried himself.

---

Yes, it doesn't necessarily say much of anything. But all too often people speak confidently about things they have never even experienced. To ask for some tentative proof that someone has done something at all isn't the end of a conversation on the subject; it's the beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jynx

Besides as pointed below it being a general comment...

Why do you use someones raiding history as a measuring stick of their accomplishments and skill as a gamer? It's about as arbitrary as throwing darts at a wall, for all we know a person could have carried a group of morons through a hectic situation, or be a braindead sod who got carried himself.

It just seems like a odd measuring stick to me, why not just speak instead of strutting abbout what you have done in previous games to try and "Back up" your points about a different game.

---

how are two people supposed to exchange dialogue about an idea if the two people have completely different notions of the idea? if they can't access the same version of the idea it generally just ends up in pointless eternal back and forth with no resolution.

so how can the two people bridge the gap and access the same or similar versions of that idea?

p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e

and if someone lacks evidence or experience to give them the same perspective, then what? what if they continue to try to argue a point in spite of lacking evidence or experience, in spite of lacking proper perspective?

what steps do you take then to help them access the same version of an idea?

and how do you effectively communicate if they can't?

give me a solid answer without sidestepping/deflecting... or acknowledge you have no idea what to do about it. and if you have no idea what to do about it, what the hell is the point of your flailing around about it in the first place?

(and speaking of perspective- nobody got carried through 70 cap sunwell. NOBODY. if you had experience with it, you'd understand. so, as i was saying...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jynx

Besides as pointed below it being a general comment...

Why do you use someones raiding history as a measuring stick of their accomplishments and skill as a gamer? It's about as arbitrary as throwing darts at a wall, for all we know a person could have carried a group of morons through a hectic situation, or be a braindead sod who got carried himself.

It just seems like a odd measuring stick to me, why not just speak instead of strutting abbout what you have done in previous games to try and "Back up" your points about a different game.

---

Because there's always a person on this forum who chimes in saying they played WOW and got to max level in a week and beat all end-game in a month and always going on about how super easy it was.

I want to see proof of that accomplishment, and it's readily available. None of them have been able to provide it, strangely enough.

it's just weird to me how when you qualify a statement with examples you're epeening, and when you ask someone else to qualify a statement with examples you're an elitist. i don't think people understand how to reach resolution in a discussion. apparently they think you just discuss for the sake of discussing, forever, never getting anywhere and that's okay.

what's the point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fusional

apparently they think you just discuss for the sake of discussing, forever, never getting anywhere and that's okay.

what's the point?

---

well, but honestly that happens everywhere.
in internet forums just like in political panel discussions.

the point of view is a circle with the radius 0.

the only difference i see is between feedback and discussion.
when someone gives feedback and says his opinion its normally nothing that has to be commented or debated.

and there's the dilemma.
the purpose of the forums is feedback from the players.
unfortunately we are in the general discussions section...

Lots of these in here now...

http://www.gameinformer.com/cfs-file...2D00_610x0.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altena

Lots of these in here now...

http://www.gameinformer.com/cfs-file...2D00_610x0.jpg

---

The important thing is you found a way to feel superior to both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfie

The important thing is you found a way to feel superior to both sides.

---

I see you attempted to satisfy this craving yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fusional

and if someone lacks evidence or experience to give them the same perspective, then what? what if they continue to try to argue a point in spite of lacking evidence or experience, in spite of lacking proper perspective?

---

So what's the proper perspective? For instance, I accept and agree that you can talk on the matter of a death penalty from your perspective as a challenger of end-game content. The number of people who can share your perspective is naturally limited. I made you aware of my perspective on the issue a few pages back and I got the subsequent impression that you consider it irrelevant due to me not having the same or comparable end-game experience as you do.

There's a lot more to the game than the battlefields and speed-runs. During a lot of those activities, you also have the threat of character death. So there are different perspectives than yours, equally as valid. If I had tried to state my opinion on what I think should be done about Ifrit nails, then my perspective would be pretty useless. I don't though, and likewise, you don't post in the lore threads (for example).

It is possible for two people to exchange dialogue about an idea even if their notions/perspectives are different. It will only result in a pointless back-and-forth if neither person can admit the validity of the other's perspective.

So it's acceptance that you may not be relevant to some people, in the same manner that they aren't relevant to you and qualifying your own statements with how the topic affects your activities within the game. Your opinion on the death penalty does not come from 'proper perspective', merely your own (and perhaps similar players').

An intelligent response to the thread could have been:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fusional

As a regular challenger of end-game content, I feel that the cost of repairs are enough penalty for dying. My fear is that a sterner penalty will discourage the majority of the player-base from attempting content where death is more likely and therefore artificially restrict the game as a whole. At the worst-case, this may lead developers to reduce the amount of content that I enjoy the most, meaning my friends and I will have to look elsewhere for the kind of challenge we enjoy.

Also, Mjollnir, I really like your idea of perma-death. I hope this kind of play is introduced in its own server. It could really show who the elite players are and lead to some hilarious drama!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mjollnir

Gold

---

Totally agreed.

Although in the same respect, perspective can come from previous experience in other games, and although I share a similar perspective to fusion's XIV experience as I too tackle end-game content, die very frequently, etc, yet do not share the same opinion as him/her, as I believe the death penalty is too weak / open for abuse.

So that opens the discussion into a new level and that is "opinion". There are always 2 sides to a coin, and naturally people are stubborn. I won't convince anyone else that doesn't initially agree, to convert over to the "dark side" as it will, nor will they convince me.

That is when you have to look at ways in which you can get the coin to stand on its end and discuss the shiny parts from both sides.

The disadvantages with increased death penalty:
- Loss of time
- Loss of game currency
- Loss of functionality (in a battle sense)
- Less incentive for "casual" players to tackle difficult content
- "Learning events" become very costly.

The advantages of increased death penalty:
- Discouragement from "spamming to win" or "zombie" killing.
- Reduced pace at which players complete content
- Increased overall difficulty (somewhat / depending on the penalty).
- Rare drops stay rarer for longer, as less people are potentially able to win initially.

There are a few more points in among the e-war but looking at them, they are fairly solid / equal points overall. Some more cater to the "casual" player and others the "hardcore", but overall they affect everyone.

So what if we were to drag those shiny bits from each side of the discussion out, we would probably come up with something like-
- Re-implement dungeon timers (Potentially a happy medium of 3-4 hours capped, to prevent people pitching tents overnight, while allowing players to attempt the final boss numerous times)
- Inability to change jobs/classes in an instance (Not sure about this as I wasn't in alpha, however this will force people to leave for repairs eventually).
- "Trash" mobs repop after 1hr or so.
- A slightly harsher initial weakness effect. Potentially a 25% increase in recast times (or similar) and a "slow" effect on auto-attack. (Brink of death is fine as-is).

I can understand why people are against EXP loss, and after further examination of the way the game works, it probably wouldn't realistically fit. However as mentioned much earlier in my replies I do feel that the death penalty doesn't have any form of impact. It shouldn't be too harsh, it shouldn't be too weak, but at the moment it is too weak in my opinion.