Difficulty format for Normal and Savage will remain in 4.0

[B0YRaNmA]

It's reasonable for someone to voice objections to a suggestion that would significantly alter some part of the game that they enjoy in its current form.

Obviously there's a respectful (or at least cordial) way to do so, but if I said (for pure point of example, I don't believe for a moment that it's the case) that either normal or savage mode is the clear and obvious problem with end game and it must be removed, I don't think it would be reasonable to expect someone who is glad that the applicable mode exists to just "keep an open mind" about that.

Reasonable voice of objections is fine, but there's gotta be a line. What I'm seeing is, who's getting the last saying and that person will win the argument. So, you'll just end up constantly at each others throat to no end of 10+ page that is completely not related to the OP.

P.S.
When a suggestion is made, one agrees or disagree.
You agree, you press like and if you have something to add on, add on.
You disagree, you don't do anything and reply to the thread with what you believe should be the opposite.
If there's a specific counter that you want to do, quote that specific area and follow up with maybe two or three more counter arguments (have pity on those that truly wants to follows the thread for possibly and pure innovative ideas).

[Ibi]

You disagree, you don't do anything and reply to the thread with what you believe should be the opposite.
If there's a specific counter that you want to do, quote that specific area and follow up with maybe two or three more counter arguments (have pity on those that truly wants to follows the thread for possibly and pure innovative ideas).

That's how most, if not all, of these arguments and back-and-forth started at one point though. Usually several threads ago.

I know a lot of the people in this thread (and some other regulars who haven't shown up in here yet) have gone back and forth on some of this stuff in a least a half dozen threads before because:

1. We have different (sometimes wildly so) opinions on both what motivates people at end game and on what a good end game structure would involve.
2. We're all pretty stubborn and convinced that our answer is at least mostly correct and the other person must just be missing some key point of our argument, and if we can just find the right way to phrase it, obviously they'll come around to our point of view.

So what may have started out as a reasonable conversation has just escalated over time.