Inevitable Job Simplifications?

[Valence]

Hard to decipher, massive thread full of collapsibles within collapsibles

I was about to write an essay on my own but this is just getting out of hand for very little.

The thing you do not seem to get is that I am arguing for inclusivity in all jobs. Inclusivity means high accessibility (low floor) and a decent amount of intricacies/depth, or difficulty of perfect execution (ceiling). You took at some point the example of RDM and acknowledged that this was possible to do earlier, for an example. With that in mind, no matter the jobs that people like, they'll be able to find their own niche there, whether they're casual players, midcore, hardcore, top tier raiders, or handicapped players. If this passes for "forcing inclusivity on all jobs down the throat of players" to you, then I'm legitimately concerned about the twisted logic behind. In opposition, you have been arguing to select a couple of jobs and make them very exclusive to low ceiling models. Who's trying to force what there exactly?

Another clarification: I do not believe the slightest in "easy", "normal" and "hard" job difficulties and categories, for that there are just silly and difficulty is so subjective on such broad scopes that it's just laughable to even consider. I merely used this to demonstrate how self contradictory your arguments are all the time. For instance, if you introduce your easy, normal and hard model to every role, and therefore argue for "easy" jobs living within the same roles alongside harder ones, even though difficulty is hella subjective, with your own reasoning a lot of players will choose the path of least resistance, even raiders. Ergo, you're encouraging a model where job ratios of play get even more lopsided than they already are.

I am not even gonna touch the talents/spec tree considerations seeing how well balanced games that use those are.

I have never been dodging the question, you're just not reading the answers.

EDIT: UGH!!!


So...you took a quote, apologized for doing it, then brought it up a second time as an attack?

Like...are you for real?

Aren't you pushing it a little? First you ask people to stop using "braindead", which I even agreed to and apologized for, and then you casually proceed to use it yourself in your next post. When I point it out, you choose to whine because I'm attacking you with it? Really?


Edit: and after this, you're also one to talk for logical fallacies... What a nice way to assume that all the likes I get are from the same forum users? And what about your argumentum ad populum when you use the amount of play ratios for SMN/etc as proof for whatever you're trying to prove? The gal of some people...