Prestige Enhancement List (Holiday Bonus!)

[sephiroth1084]

What's the matter, Yaga? Afflicted by hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia?

I think that may be the most ironically self-contained word I've ever seen. Good job Tanka!

[Hadrian]

Whiskey fallacy.

I tried to be fair to the points being made, and I would appreciate the same courtesy in response.

It's not really a question of "spending time" or "spending effort", but of "reducing diversity" and "excluding people".

Borror0 made a point about taking extra time, and my comment was meant to speak to his concern. I do agree with you in that it's not a matter of time or effort, and I was stating why. You can easily avoid that by simply going in on normal if you find that to be a problem for you, personally.

Waiting around for the right class to show up is not something I have seen a lot of players enjoy. Making of these classes "nice additions" rather than "must-haves" goes a long way into making grouping easier and more enjoyable for everyone.

Secondly, it is most certainly about excluding people. Elite

If you're going to argue that this is the problem, then it would seem to me that you're arguing for a shift in the way the game is currently designed. I do not agree with that shift, and wish to make it clear why. Allow me to restate my main point to make sure that it remains clear:

I understand your point, but part of the draw of this game is the diversity of the classes and the ability to make your own build with strengths and weaknesses that suit you. If you start to limit the differences between what two different characters can offer, you take some of that away. I think that would have a larger negative effect than positive.

[Borror0]

You can easily avoid that by simply going in on normal if you find that to be a problem for you, personally.

Well, that is not even a workaround to the problem.

First of all, there is currently no significant reward to run a quest on Elite over Normal and thus it is ran on Normal instead. Secondly, even if there was a reward the problem would still exist since running the quest on Normal would not yield the same benefits than it would on Elite, the same problems would remain.

If you're going to argue that this is the problem, then it would seem to me that you're arguing for a shift in the way the game is currently designed. I do not agree with that shift, and wish to make it clear why.

It is as much of a shift as allowing rogue splashes to disable traps...

[Angelus_dead]

I tried to be fair to the points being made, and I would appreciate the same courtesy in response.

I really wish I could respond fairly, but that's unfortunately prohibited.

[Angelus_dead]

If you're going to argue that this is the problem, then it would seem to me that you're arguing for a shift in the way the game is currently designed. I do not agree with that shift, and wish to make it clear why. Allow me to restate my main point to make sure that it remains clear:

Your main point is that diversity in builds is valuable, which conflicts with your conclusion, because you oppose changes to increase diversity.

Here's a simple concrete example. Which is more diverse?
1. Every raid must include a bard.
2. Every raid must include a bard or PDK.

[Hadrian]

Your main point is that diversity in builds is valuable, which conflicts with your conclusion, because you oppose changes to increase diversity.

Here's a simple concrete example. Which is more diverse?
1. Every raid must include a bard.
2. Every raid must include a bard or PDK.

You're defining diversity as the ability to have a group make up consist of anything without having any downside.

I am defining diversity as character uniqueness.

My conclusion doesn't support what you are calling diversity, but it does support my own view. Let me state that again: Character uniqueness is an important part of what DDO offers, and I do not believe that making classes/builds less unique would be beneficial for DDO.

The problem that you're having is that you're trying to apply your definition of diversity to my statements. This is what I am trying to disagree with. Naturally, pretending that I mean the opposite of what I said will make it seem like I am not making sense. It's not a "whiskey fallacy" simply because I disagree with your definition of diversity.

[Tanka]

I am defining diversity as character uniqueness.

[Borror0]

Character uniqueness is an important part of what DDO offers, and I do not believe that making classes/builds less unique would be beneficial for DDO.

Your position is more like:

"I feel it is important for a group to have a rigid structure, even at the cost of making grouping much harder."

It's not reducing character uniqueness but rather making class less powerful in some area.

The character is still bringing something unique to the group but the group is less penalized by not having him.

[Hadrian]

Your position is more like:

"I feel it is important for a group to have a rigid structure, even at the cost of making grouping much harder."

It's not reducing character uniqueness but rather making class less powerful in some area.

The character is still bringing something unique to the group but the group is less penalized by not having him.

I see that you're very set in your opinions and not going to try to have a discussion.

My point is more like what I actually said. Spreading out abilities so that no one can stand out is not in increase in diversity. It is quite obvious that it accomplishes the opposite.

If you wish to try to convince the developers that such a drastic change is necessary, you're going to have to do better than rewording someone's disagreements to something that you can handle. And no, that does not include accusing someone of logical fallacies simply because they disagree with an opinion that you hold and assume is an absolute truth.

Currently, it is more optimal to bring one class over another in some situations, but I have yet to see an absolute need for any one specific class in any quest. Even the high-end raids have All-Class-X runs done on them, which should show that the basis of your argument is itself a fallacy.

[Borror0]

My point is more like what I actually said. Spreading out abilities so that no one can stand out is not in increase in diversity. It is quite obvious that it accomplishes the opposite.

Maybe not in character diversity, but it certainly does add gameplay diversity.

It does not negatively affect character diversity, though. Clerics would still be best at healing even though bards would be given better healing than now. Paladins would still be the preferred class for the Aura bonus, even if PDK gained some of it. Rangers would still be the king of Barkskin, etc.

In fact, in some cases, the benefit on diversity would be positive rather than neutral (bard gaining better healing).

You don't need to be unique to be useful. Characters in DDO are not one trick ponies. X rng/1 rog being able to disable traps has never rendered rogues useless in a quest/group and in this case both are equal (the ranger can deal with traps as good as the rogue) both classes have other things to offer.

[Hadrian]

Maybe not in character diversity, but it certainly does add gameplay diversity.

To have different classes with different means of accomplishing the same thing is diversity.

To suggest that classes be given lesser versions of other classes tools so that everyone can accomplish the same thing in the same way is to attempt to lessen diversity.

You don't need to be unique to be useful, but you are the one talking about how useful something is. I simply said that character diversity is an important part of what DDO offers as an MMOG. Whether or not you can make something useful is up to you. Because of the diverse options, it is very possible to make a horrible mess of a character. I see that as a good thing. You may disagree.

There is currently no need to bring a certain class on a certain quest. It might be possible that a bard will help you finish the Shroud faster, for example. You're not going to fail if you don't have the bard.

What we have now is a situation like you're describing. Not every class is optimal to bring along for a given role, but you can find a role for anyone that you do bring. The only difference is that we might resort to more imaginitive ways of dealing with a problem than simply using a lesser version of the same tools that have defined another class for the past 3 years.

[vtecfiend99]

I really wish I could respond fairly, but that's unfortunately prohibited.

Do you ever come down off that high horse? Is this how you talk to people in person? I bet not because you would get your little ***** mouth slapped right the **** off your face. The last couple days you have been a real **** to people who don't see things your way. As if yours is the only view that could possibly be right. Get a life man, you don't work for turbine, you don't make decisions for them so stop pretending like you are the source of all knowledge in the universe. It's getting old.

[Angelus_dead]

I see that you're very set in your opinions and not going to try to have a discussion.

Yes, I'm set in my opinion, because it happens to be right. I am entirely willing to discuss it, but some of your own statements (including that one) suggest a disinclination to talk reasonably.

If you wish to try to convince the developers that such a drastic change is necessary

For your information: It was the developers who announced that PDK is coming to DDO, and the defining feature of the D&D PDK is that he provides Inspire Courage without being a bard. In other words, one class is gets a weaker version of the benefits of another class. It wasn't my idea, but I did provide some commentary about what changes of that nature could mean.

And no, that does not include accusing someone of logical fallacies simply because they disagree with an opinion that you hold and assume is an absolute truth.

Of course not. The only time to do that would be when fallacious reasoning is observed.

Currently, it is more optimal to bring one class over another in some situations, but I have yet to see an absolute need for any one specific class in any quest.

Anti-nirvana fallacy.

Even the high-end raids have All-Class-X runs done on them, which should show that the basis of your argument is itself a fallacy.

Nonrepresentative exemplar.

[Borror0]

You don't need to be unique to be useful, but you are the one talking about how useful something is. I simply said that character diversity is an important part of what DDO offers as an MMOG. Whether or not you can make something useful is up to you. Because of the diverse options, it is very possible to make a horrible mess of a character.

I don't understand your argument here.

[Hadrian]

Yes, I'm set in my opinion, because it happens to be right. I am entirely willing to discuss it, but some of your own statements (including that one) suggest a disinclination to talk reasonably.

Yes, you have me there. You respond to everything with two words, just enough to call it a fallacy. Since you know that your own opinion is correct, there is no need for you to discuss. Clearly, I am not being reasonable to expect more from a mature discussion.

You called my statement an anti-nirvana fallacy, but I was restating what Borror0 claimed would be a result of spreading out abilities. I think you may have totally missed the point I was trying to make with him.

His statement was that the primary class that owned the ability would still be the best at it. In other words, you can choose another class to get the job done, but it won't be optimal. My point was to show him that we currently have that now.

Clearly that's an anti-nirvana fallacy since it really doesn't come close to meeting the definition.

Also, if you can run a quest with two different all-class-X groups, then it shows that you do not need any specific class to accomplish a quest. We see that happen regularly. This is probably a non-representative exemplar because it directly contradicts the basis of your argument, right? If a certain class was actually required, this could not happen.

Your example question asked which is more diverse, but the question is a false dilema. That is not what we face in DDO. You do not need the bard or the PDK if you don't want to take either one. That's what makes the game diverse.

Again, what you're asking for is to reduce diversity.

Edit: It might be possible that we're crosstalking. What I objected to were statements in the post by Borror0 that is linked here:

.

I have no objection to the PDK, but Borror0 seems to be talking about going much, much further. If you're simply speaking in support of the PDK's abilities, that's really a long way from what Borror0 was talking about.

[Borror0]

if you can run a quest with two different all-class-X groups, then it shows that you do not need any specific class to accomplish a quest.

Just because a situation isn't completely wrong in every measurable way doesn't mean it's acceptable and needs no improvement.

Again, what you're asking for is to reduce diversity.

Please elaborate on that because I don't see it.

[Tanka]

Again, what you're asking for is to reduce diversity.

No, what he's asking for is diversity. You're asking for a reason for characters to be unique, and there is no reason for any character to be any more unique than another.

[Hadrian]

I don't understand your argument here.

I can see that. The problem is that you're discussing this from an entirely different point of view, so you seem to be reshaping my statements to fit how you see things.

Most MMOs suffer from a "cookie cutter" problem where all high level characters of a certain class are virtually identical. If you join a group with a warrior in PvP, you pretty much know how he's going to be set up. There is very little variance because a certain specialization path is pretty well agreed upon as the best by the community.

Part of the charm of DDO is the fact that you can design a build for yourself to accomplish what you wish. You can go more in depth with choosing what strengths and weaknesses you have. You might find a character that fills some typical role, like DPS melee, but surprises you with some ability that you wouldn't normally expect to see on such a character.

UMD is basically a degree of what you're asking for. It gives many classes the option to do a little bit of what another class can do. A bard can heal, yet not as strong as a cleric. A rogue can heal, but not as strong as either one. You can still get the job done with any of them.

But if you take this too far so that you never need to care what you're inviting to a party because everyone can fill the role, you've taken away the meaning of making your own build. You've taken away a reason to try another way to solve a problem. You've dumbed down the game.

[Hadrian]

No, what he's asking for is diversity. You're asking for a reason for characters to be unique, and there is no reason for any character to be any more unique than another.

Do better than just saying "no, you are." I can't really respond to that. My reasons are already stated in some detail. If you wish to disagree with them, state why and I can respond to that.

Secondly, I do not feel your statement represents what I have said. I am not asking for a reason for anything. I am giving a reason why the diversity we have in character creation and building is important to DDO, and why I think your suggestions would reduce that to solve a problem that does not even seem to exist.

You do not need a specific class to do any quest. This is because of the diversity that we already have. You can lack something and work around it, but if you give everyone a version of that "something" there will be no need.

[Hadrian]

Just because a situation isn't completely wrong in every measurable way doesn't mean it's acceptable and needs no improvement.

Just because there are people that cannot find an alternate solution to a problem does not mean you need to lower the bar.

I get it, though. Your minds are made up and I am wasting my time. I'll leave you to go through my posts and assign random fallacy accusations.