Rinsui,

Thanks for wading through my ultra-long wall of text.
Quote Originally Posted by Rinsui View Post
@Vydarr
- The argument about inventory space is already included in the list.
Looking through your list, there are a number of posts that have "Counter-Argument: none so far," which is misleading. There are counter-arguments, they're just addressed elsewhere. So maybe the language should be changed to "Counter-Argument: Addressed elsewhere."
No slippery slope, just a logical consequence of the "difficulty should be adjustable" argument. If players find an easier way to beat a dungeon (let's say, a manaburn of sorts) I think the fault is on SE's side, not on the player's. The latter only try to maximize their effort/reward equation. So yes, I personally believe exploiting weaknesses in the game system (pathfinding issues, "playing" with a monster's territory binding and such things) is cheating, but I fully understand why others would consider it "smart play" - because unquestionably, innovative tactics are involved. BUT that's only a personal opinion and not the issue of this discussion.
It is a slippery slope argument. The Counter-argument suggests that the logic of Point A would lead to absurd consequences if applied to Subject B. That's a slippery slope argument.

And yes, reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes an exploit, and they can also disagree on whether those exploits are "cheating." I -- and I think many others, including SE -- would not consider taking a r50 into a r30 dungeon to be "cheating." You obviously disagree, but I would respectfully submit that you're in the minority on that issue.
On player number restrictions: Definitely a point. Just imagine that during your "raid" someone DCs, and there's a puzzle requiring 4 players to solve. THE DRAMA. But, please accept that I consider this another topic. Things are complicated enough already.
Well, there's gonna be DRAMA no matter what happens.

I don't really mind the idea of puzzles that require multiple people to solve. If someone DCs, I think that's just a risk you run when you're playing an online MMO. It's a bummer -- especially since there's going to be a time limit before you can re-enter -- but it's a game, and not the end of the world.

But I do think the fact that you can't solo a dungeon is a counter-argument to the point about soloing at r50. While I'd like to be able to do it, it's not currently allowed.
Sounds logical, but once again defies the complexity of human nature (which are very well able to contradict themselves three times within a single sentence). Let me give you an example: Everybody in FFXI wanted artifact weapons (Spharai, Excalibur etc.). Few would have refused an Excalibur if it was given to them for free at the beginning of the game (I certainly wouldn't have...). So one could assume that, if SE simply had handed out free Excaliburs with every copy of the game, everyone would have been happy. Do you think that would have been the case?
I think people would have taken a free Excalibur. Like Renta said, I doubt that they would have valued it as much as if they'd earned it. But again, I think I've been unclear.

I don't disagree that people would usually prefer to get rewards the easiest way possible. In fact, that's probably the main sociological lesson in MMOs. If there's a way that players can get rewards more easily and quickly, they'll do it.

But the statement was that people will always get their rewards the easiest way possible. That's not true. I've made things intentionally more challenging, just for the fun. Some people fight NMs solo, just for the challenge. After the world NMs got boring, a LS on my server started mixing it up -- fighting without provokes, fighting without AoEs, etc. -- just to keep it fun and interesting.

I do think people will blitz through the r30 dungeons with r50 jobs. I will probably do it myself at some point. But I'll probably run them on my r30 jobs, too. Because I want the challenge. And I would honestly be shocked if none of the people here who say they want a challenge run the dungeons on their r30 jobs.
Hmm. And since we have no death penalty, they would have to level another job to 25 a little later, then another one...? Please clarify! I included the possibility to start a new character to participate in low level dungeons.
I think the fact that you have to start a new character is definitely a counter-argument, rather than a positive. You should get attached to your character, and want to use that character in all adventures. So I intended that to be a negative, not a positive.

The point I was making is that it doesn't take long to level a job from zero to 25. So, yes, some people will have to level another job to "get the challenge" of running the dungeons on a r25 character. But it wouldn't take much of a time commitment to do it.

But again, I don't think that negates the argument. It just points out that -- like rearranging macros -- it's a headache, not an actual bar to participation.
That argument is true once you take into consideration the overall balance of the game and the relative value of rewards. Rentahamster is on the right track, and clarifies one facet of the problem I assumed to be a commonly shared premise:
- Rewards obtain part of their value by their rarity. With easily-attainable rewards, you devaluate the rewards themselves. So proponents of level cap partially want to ensure that the world is not flooded with rewards obtained with no effort (see one of the pro-arguments about rewarding effort).
I don't disagree with this argument. In fact, I think it's a valid point, and a strong argument in favor of level capping the dungeons.

What I disagree with is the idea that people will always choose the easiest path to get rewards. But I've gone through that a couple times now, so I won't belabor the point (more than I already have).