[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. Perhaps they should do this...
It WOULD make something you can already do, easier.
But then, they could make it so Enhancements all cost 1 inf
It WOULD make something you can already do, easier.
Or maybe they should make it so you get so much XP, you can go from 1 to 50 in 1 day!
It WOULD make something you can already do, easier.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hyperbole doesn't make your point any less specious.
[/ QUOTE ]
and illogic is useless. It does not matter that they were exaggerated.
They were simple statements in the same form several people keep making.
They were simple proofs that:
The statement "We can already do X, so doing X should be made (easier/quicker/etc.)",
is logically unsound, and meaningless.
The valid conclusion:
"We already can do X" obviously does NOT logically lead to 'X should be made easier'.
If the idea can be supported, it will need to be done without that illogic.
.
[ QUOTE ]
OK, if that is true, what are the differences between an easy inheritance scheme system, and one with free (or near free) enhancements? What are the differences. I have proposed that easy inheritance and free enhancements are actually very close in performance, and thus, the arguement would not be specious. Indeed, I purport to have two advantages to a free system over a transfer one, thereby making free the superior system.
[/ QUOTE ]
Somebody has to earn the inf. It's that simple.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ QUOTE ]
The statement "We can already do X, so doing X should be made (easier/quicker/etc.)",
is logically unsound, and meaningless.
[/ QUOTE ]
Only if you don't understand logical reasoning. It's not unsound, it's incomplete. The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise, but it isn't contradicted by the premise (i.e. logically unsound) either.
It's not meaningless either. I don't even know what that means in this context. 
The argument is that since we can already share inf, enhancers, etc. with our alts that a person would prefer an easier way to do it. The addition of the word "prefer" is all that is required to make this idea logically sound. Because the unstated implication of saying that we can already do it is that there is no balance implications to it. Which there aren't. Any balance costs to sharing with your alts is a sunk cost.
I have a one-man SG that I use for overflow from my main SG the Tempest Legion. I have absolutely no problems sharing money and gear between my characters. This idea provides another option to something that already exists.
If you don't like the option, then that's cool. Don't use it. But it doesn't impact you anymore than any other feature the devs add that you don't want. It takes up some developer time that could be spent doing something you did want. If that's your objection, then I can understand that.
But no other objection has any relevance to this discussion.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ QUOTE ]
But none of this speaks to the arguement I made on free enhancements.
"There is nothing that you could get with (free enhancements) that you couldn't get from influence from winning a Costume Contest or getting a super expensive recipe or salvage drop and selling it on the market."
Since you claim this state of the game offers players the ability to trick out a character wholy divorced from a need to transfer inf, I ask the counter arguement:
Why transfer at all then?
And why not free enhancements?
[/ QUOTE ] Because time spent playing is also a cost of enhancements. Your idea would eliminate that factor. While the idea of easier transfers would not. Somebody, at some point, had to go out and earn the influence and get the drop, and that took time. Your idea of just giving them away would eliminate the need to play the game at all.
I have no problems with the idea of sending something through the mail. None whatsoever. Postage fees would be a money sink, which this game desperately needs.
Mind you, I seem to recall that there was a developer response along the following lines: "The reason we don't have an in-game mailing system is that we didn't assign anybody to program one."
So there you are.
[ QUOTE ]
Allowing transfers through an easy means would not harm the market in a drastic way.
[/ QUOTE ] I dispute this statement, and thus the basis for our disagreement.[ QUOTE ]
Making enhancements free would instantly destroy all market values for such and ruin the market entirely.
[/ QUOTE ] The market would be obsolete, as you could obtain any item you want at any time. It is fair to say that Marketeers would strongly disapprove, but overall, it makes item acquisition easier then transfers, which was the direction of my suggestion.
So if you favor transfers because you believe the impact to the market would be small, but oppose free enhancements because the impact to the market would be huge, can we agree then that there is some limit, call it the Blackavaar
limit, over which the market is "too impacted", but under which the market is "still fine"?
If we can agree on this, then we need only define what that limit is.
Some people will say the BM is already too slow, how much slower can it sustain? If WW were to slow down to the liquidity of the BM, is that too slow? Or if you believe that the BM is fine, how much slower can it sustain?
Then we have to determine how much impact inheritance would produce. You say it won't be much, I say it will be noticable. If inheritance causes a 5% slowdown on CH, is that sustainable? How do we know how much it will slow down?
Consider: We can roughly determine the activity on recipes and crafted IOs, due to their lower turnover rate. I have no doubt that some friendly Marketeers could provide us some numbers on that. Then we need only determine how many items that would ordinarily go to the CH end up being transfered instead. We could start collecting data on it similar to the data I collected on inf tranfers back when the limit was 4 or 5 digits. Back then about 60% of players were transfering inf. When I asked if they made it easier, how many people that were not trading would do so, about 25-30% said they might. While this is not in anyway representative of what we would find for inheritance, if you will indulge me this as a starting point, it would be fair to say that we would see a 50% increase in the number of players transfering. If tha tis true, we find the average number of items CHed instead of transfered, and we have the two varriables needed to find out the estimated market activty loss. If it causes the illiquidity to go over the Blackavaar
limit, we know not to do it. If it doesn't, we can. Not simple to do, but at least we have a mathematical way to determine whether you or I am right. Not just think we are, but know we are.[ QUOTE ]
As far as your argument goes your "Free Enhancements" would be a whole lot worse than my transferred influence.
[/ QUOTE ] Only if market activity is the only or major part of the determination. On the other hand, as I mentioned, if ease of enhancement acquisition is the major or only consideration, then my way is better. Which makes the point I wanted to make. The choice is complicated because there ar emore factors involved then just "I can do it already, so why not make it easier".[ QUOTE ]
And "twinking" as you define it is stupid if anyone can do it given the right circumstances. "Twinking" as it is defined for the majority of MMO's means you are able to use something that you are not powerful enough to get for yourself (ie, a drop from a dungeon that is limited to level 46+ being usable by a level 32 character and giving stats beyond those available for other level 32s) to great advantage. There's no great advantage here when someone uses some extra influence to green up their enhancements because they can never get above the limitation of their own level.
[/ QUOTE ] If there is no great advantage to be gained by "greening up your enhancements", then why do it?
You can't simultaneously claim it is too important not to make a change, while not important enough to worry about the consequences.[ QUOTE ]
Just make up another word, or keep using that "tricking out" phrase you seem to like so much (even though it is not fitting to the situation either).
[/ QUOTE ]
I use tricked out because of the use of twink in slang. But it means the same thing most people use twinking to mean. Having superior equipment then a character of your level can reasonably expect to have. That you MIGHT be able to get that powerful under extraoridinary circumstances does not mean you SHOULD be able to get that powerful all the time.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, if that is true, what are the differences between an easy inheritance scheme system, and one with free (or near free) enhancements? What are the differences. I have proposed that easy inheritance and free enhancements are actually very close in performance, and thus, the arguement would not be specious. Indeed, I purport to have two advantages to a free system over a transfer one, thereby making free the superior system.
[/ QUOTE ]
Somebody has to earn the inf. It's that simple.
[/ QUOTE ]
MunkiLord responsed
[ QUOTE ]
Because time spent playing is also a cost of enhancements. Your idea would eliminate that factor. While the idea of easier transfers would not. Somebody, at some point, had to go out and earn the influence and get the drop, and that took time. Your idea of just giving them away would eliminate the need to play the game at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, You and Munki responsed similarly so I bunched his response here too.
If we can agree that enhancement acquisition is rightly restricted based on time, instead of just wealth, then it begs the question:
If acquiring enhancements over time is a valuable function in the game, why is collecting them over time for each character not valuable?
Doesn't having all the enhancements you might ever want, but only if you have a high level or wealth lucky character still reduce the value the time requirement for enhancement acquisition provides? Doesn't it reduce it in equal portion to what is lost if you have free enhancements?
If it is more fun to get the enhancements then to have them freely available, isn't it fair to ask, why it would not be fun to do that per character rather then per account?
[ QUOTE ]
If acquiring enhancements over time is a valuable function in the game, why is collecting them over time for each character not valuable?
[/ QUOTE ] To some people it is. For me(most of the time) and others(not sure how many) it's not. I really feel it's just a personal preference.
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't having all the enhancements you might ever want, but only if you have a high level or wealth lucky character still reduce the value the time requirement for enhancement acquisition provides? Doesn't it reduce it in equal portion to what is lost if you have free enhancements?
[/ QUOTE ] Yes, it does reduce the time if you have a high level character funding an alt because level 50s can earn influence at a much higher rate. I don't think it reduces it in equal portion because at some point you still have to earn the influence with your 50, which does take time. But by giving away all the enhancements for free it completely eliminates the time investment.
[ QUOTE ]
If it is more fun to get the enhancements then to have them freely available, isn't it fair to ask, why it would not be fun to do that per character rather then per account?
[/ QUOTE ] Again, I just think it's a personal preference. For example, I don't find it fun on my blasters and defenders to earn the merits/influence to purchase some KB protection. I want the KB protection asap.
I think a time investment is important and giving away free enhancements is a much worse idea because it eliminates the carrot on the stick. And the people that want the ability to have each of their characters earn their influence still can, just don't use the optional mail system. And for people like me, it would add an option that would make my in-game life a bit more convenient.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, if that is true, what are the differences between an easy inheritance scheme system, and one with free (or near free) enhancements? What are the differences. I have proposed that easy inheritance and free enhancements are actually very close in performance, and thus, the arguement would not be specious. Indeed, I purport to have two advantages to a free system over a transfer one, thereby making free the superior system.
[/ QUOTE ]
Somebody has to earn the inf. It's that simple.
[/ QUOTE ]
MunkiLord responsed
[ QUOTE ]
Because time spent playing is also a cost of enhancements. Your idea would eliminate that factor. While the idea of easier transfers would not. Somebody, at some point, had to go out and earn the influence and get the drop, and that took time. Your idea of just giving them away would eliminate the need to play the game at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, You and Munki responsed similarly so I bunched his response here too.
If we can agree that enhancement acquisition is rightly restricted based on time, instead of just wealth, then it begs the question:
If acquiring enhancements over time is a valuable function in the game, why is collecting them over time for each character not valuable?
Doesn't having all the enhancements you might ever want, but only if you have a high level or wealth lucky character still reduce the value the time requirement for enhancement acquisition provides? Doesn't it reduce it in equal portion to what is lost if you have free enhancements?
If it is more fun to get the enhancements then to have them freely available, isn't it fair to ask, why it would not be fun to do that per character rather then per account?
[/ QUOTE ]
This horse left the barn. You already can provide alts with resources. So it doesn't matter whether it's more fun to earn them yourself or not. If it's more fun for YOU, great, more power to you. It still isn't a reasonable critique of this idea because as I said, this is a sunk cost. You can already fairly easily trade resources.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ QUOTE ]
You can already fairly easily trade resources.
[/ QUOTE ]
If trading resources is already fairly easy, then there really isn't a need for the devs to waste time on this idea.
They can use their resources on more important issues.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't having all the enhancements you might ever want, but only if you have a high level or wealth lucky character still reduce the value the time requirement for enhancement acquisition provides? Doesn't it reduce it in equal portion to what is lost if you have free enhancements?
[/ QUOTE ] Yes, it does reduce the time if you have a high level character funding an alt because level 50s can earn influence at a much higher rate. I don't think it reduces it in equal portion because at some point you still have to earn the influence with your 50, which does take time. But by giving away all the enhancements for free it completely eliminates the time investment.
[/ QUOTE ] OK, but then, if there is value in spending time earning inf, why is earning it on a 30 "too slow" compared to earning it on a 50? Or 10? Why is the time spent earning inf as you level up not valuable enough to warrent keeping the existing system, and a change should be made?
Further, if earning inf on a 50 is the "right" speed with which to earn inf, wouldn't it eliminate this request if we earned inf at equal rates regardless of combat level? Would that eliminate requests for easier inheritance?[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it is more fun to get the enhancements then to have them freely available, isn't it fair to ask, why it would not be fun to do that per character rather then per account?
[/ QUOTE ] Again, I just think it's a personal preference. For example, I don't find it fun on my blasters and defenders to earn the merits/influence to purchase some KB protection. I want the KB protection asap.
[/ QUOTE ] Wouldn't that suggest that those particular character types should have KB protection, rather then having their inf rate generation modified (as is the case if you transfer only to these character types)?[ QUOTE ]
I think a time investment is important and giving away free enhancements is a much worse idea because it eliminates the carrot on the stick. And the people that want the ability to have each of their characters earn their influence still can, just don't use the optional mail system. And for people like me, it would add an option that would make my in-game life a bit more convenient.
[/ QUOTE ]
But remember I am also arguing that there are negative repercussions from easier inheritance. How bad would those have to be to outweigh the supposed benefit from the change, given that there is value in the time spent acquiring inf?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can already fairly easily trade resources.
[/ QUOTE ]
If trading resources is already fairly easy, then there really isn't a need for the devs to waste time on this idea.
They can use their resources on more important issues.
[/ QUOTE ]
If a number of people want it, then it's an important issue. All QoL features are low-priority. This one is no different. And this response is almost desperate. If it doesn't affect your game, you have no legitimate reason to object. Other than trolling, but then I think half the people who spend time on this board are here to down any idea for the fun of it.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can already fairly easily trade resources.
[/ QUOTE ]
If trading resources is already fairly easy, then there really isn't a need for the devs to waste time on this idea.
They can use their resources on more important issues.
[/ QUOTE ]
If a number of people want it, then it's an important issue. All QoL features are low-priority. This one is no different. And this response is almost desperate. If it doesn't affect your game, you have no legitimate reason to object. Other than trolling, but then I think half the people who spend time on this board are here to down any idea for the fun of it.
[/ QUOTE ]
1) Just because a lot of people want it does not make it an important issue. a lot of people want Marijuana to be legal, but that doesn't make it an important issue, especially with everything else going on in this country.
2) If it doesn't affect someone's game, then that is a decent reason to object. You act as if that would have no downside to their game, when in theory it would. However, it's not a tangible downside. Basically, if time is spent coding this into the game, that is time taken away from coding something else. If the something else would affect more people, then that should take precedence. If it doesn't, then coding for a mail system does still take away from other things that could be put into the game. If the Devs were to not do this, and just sit on their hands doing nothing, then you might have a point here, but trying to say that the coding time isn't something that could be spent on other things isn't a great case to be making either.
3) People have different opinions on things. Get used to it. If I feel strongly about something, I'm going to say something. That might be in disagreement with you, even on a fundamental issue. Taking any disagreement, dismissing it, then calling the people disagreeing with you trolls isn't the way to case your argument and make it liked.
4) I really couldn't care about the issue of a mailing system. If it goes in, fine. If not, just as good. I just wanted to point out that your own argument had some flaws as well.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
[ QUOTE ]
1) Just because a lot of people want it does not make it an important issue. a lot of people want Marijuana to be legal, but that doesn't make it an important issue, especially with everything else going on in this country.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually decriminalization of drugs is a major issue right now. The president of Mexico has come out in favor of it to stem the tide of violence on the on the border with the US and Mexico.
[ QUOTE ]
2) If it doesn't affect someone's game, then that is a decent reason to object. You act as if that would have no downside to their game, when in theory it would. However, it's not a tangible downside. Basically, if time is spent coding this into the game, that is time taken away from coding something else. If the something else would affect more people, then that should take precedence. If it doesn't, then coding for a mail system does still take away from other things that could be put into the game. If the Devs were to not do this, and just sit on their hands doing nothing, then you might have a point here, but trying to say that the coding time isn't something that could be spent on other things isn't a great case to be making either.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, by that selfish theory anything I personally don't want should never be done. That's not a standard that I think any reasonable person should wish for. The devs time is valuable, but we all want things for the game. If this is on the list of things to do, that it might take some time from whatever pet issue you have doesn't harm you. It helps you because the more gamers who are happy the longer the game exists.
For instance, I don't particularly care about badges, but I understand that many people do. So time spent on badges doesn't affect me negatively even though I don't personally want them because others want them and they may not play if they weren't there.
[ QUOTE ]
3) People have different opinions on things. Get used to it. If I feel strongly about something, I'm going to say something. That might be in disagreement with you, even on a fundamental issue. Taking any disagreement, dismissing it, then calling the people disagreeing with you trolls isn't the way to case your argument and make it liked.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's alright to have a different opinion, but to down an idea that doesn't affect you in any meaningful way is trolling. This isn't a fundamental issue, it's a QoL change. It doesn't have any affect on balance, it doesn't change anyone's game who doesn't want to use the feature.
Yeah disagreeing with an idea like that is trolling. If I were to disagree with the adding of a badge, when it wouldn't affect me in the slightest, I'm trolling.
I don't care if people like the argument, because I'm tired of people on this board downing basically every idea on the most specious of reasons. It's what got this board banished to the dregs.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can already fairly easily trade resources.
[/ QUOTE ]
If trading resources is already fairly easy, then there really isn't a need for the devs to waste time on this idea.
They can use their resources on more important issues.
[/ QUOTE ]
If a number of people want it, then it's an important issue. All QoL features are low-priority. This one is no different. And this response is almost desperate. If it doesn't affect your game, you have no legitimate reason to object. Other than trolling, but then I think half the people who spend time on this board are here to down any idea for the fun of it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just because people want something doesn't mean it should be done.
Some people want to be able to respec out of their powersets.
Some people want to merge the servers.
Some people want the company to sell influence.
Some people want to eliminate PvP altogether.
Some people want to get rid of co-op zones.
None of those things will affect your game. They are all optional features you can choose not to use. So you have no legitimate reason to object, other than trolling.
So if you voice any disagreement with those ideas it's solely because you enjoy downing those ideas for the fun of it.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't care if people like the argument, because I'm tired of people on this board downing basically every idea on the most specious of reasons. It's what got this board banished to the dregs.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, what got this board moved to this section was the behaviour of Shiverwraith and KittyKrusader when they chose to go thru every thread they could find and file a petition each time someone posted a one word disagreement with a suggestion.
Such as
/unsigned
/no
/jranger
Ex explained it to us here.
/sign
I used to find it rather annoying as the one-time highest level character in my SG that I could supply all my SG members with whatever cash they needed but could not do the same for my own characters. Overall an annoying and somewhat arbitary limitation.
However I would rather see the ability to send SG Invites to off-line player. Actually Mad Scientist made a good suggestion for a SG Membership Request system that would achieve the same thing but with less spam
This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04
/unsigned for all the reasons given.
There would be little point to selling IOs,salvage, recipes, etc. you can't use if you can just easily mail them to an alt.
That WOULD have a more negative impact on the market. That's enough to /unsign it right there.
If we had a game pop like WoW's where there are enough sellers to offset it, then that's a different story. Unfortunately we don't. Our population of market users is so small that any things done that take extra supply off the market has an effect (see merits).
Again, /unsigned.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ QUOTE ]
1) Just because a lot of people want it does not make it an important issue. a lot of people want Marijuana to be legal, but that doesn't make it an important issue, especially with everything else going on in this country.
[/ QUOTE ]
What?!?!? It's not an important issue because YOU say it's not an important issue? I hope you understand that people have differing opinions on what issues are important, so an issue that's not important to you may be very important to someone else.
[ QUOTE ]
2) If it doesn't affect someone's game, then that is a decent reason to object. You act as if that would have no downside to their game, when in theory it would. However, it's not a tangible downside. Basically, if time is spent coding this into the game, that is time taken away from coding something else. If the something else would affect more people, then that should take precedence. If it doesn't, then coding for a mail system does still take away from other things that could be put into the game. If the Devs were to not do this, and just sit on their hands doing nothing, then you might have a point here, but trying to say that the coding time isn't something that could be spent on other things isn't a great case to be making either.
[/ QUOTE ]
I generally hate this argument, especially given the lack of programming knowledge among forum-goers. You can use this argument to object to every single suggestion that isn't your #1 priority.
[ QUOTE ]
(Forbin Project)No, what got this board moved to this section was...
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't see Ex stating that the forum was moved because of the posters you named. Though I'm an S&I neophyte, I wouldn't blame those two for the move, as the elimination of those stupid posts is a huge improvement for this forum. The behavior and ideas of a majority of the S&I forum goers is the reason why this forum belongs right where it is.
All that being said, I continue to support the suggestion to improve the ease with which assets can be transferred between characters on the same account.
I don't understand the objections against the suggestion, as I would think the change would be relatively easy (note lack of programming knowledge) and be a nice QoL improvement. I would venture to guess that most folks who object to the change have no problem transferring assets between characters currently, and simply want to maintain that advantage over other players.
[ QUOTE ]
/unsigned for all the reasons given.
There would be little point to selling IOs,salvage, recipes, etc. you can't use if you can just easily mail them to an alt.
That WOULD have a more negative impact on the market. That's enough to /unsign it right there.
If we had a game pop like WoW's where there are enough sellers to offset it, then that's a different story. Unfortunately we don't. Our population of market users is so small that any things done that take extra supply off the market has an effect (see merits).
Again, /unsigned.
[/ QUOTE ]
Possible impact on the market is grossly exaggerated for the following reasons:
1) I can transfer stuff to alts it just takes time.
2) the only things I can't transfer easily at the moment are recipes and money
3) stuff I can't transfer DOESN'T make its way to the Market anyway so the market isn't loosing out.
4) if it was easier to build up my alts using stuff my main doesn't want then I would be more likely to invest in "special" stuff for those alts and therefore more likely to use the market.
Again /signed
This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can already fairly easily trade resources.
[/ QUOTE ]
If trading resources is already fairly easy, then there really isn't a need for the devs to waste time on this idea.
They can use their resources on more important issues.
[/ QUOTE ]
If a number of people want it, then it's an important issue. All QoL features are low-priority. This one is no different. And this response is almost desperate. If it doesn't affect your game, you have no legitimate reason to object. Other than trolling, but then I think half the people who spend time on this board are here to down any idea for the fun of it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just because people want something doesn't mean it should be done.
Some people want to be able to respec out of their powersets.
Some people want to merge the servers.
Some people want the company to sell influence.
Some people want to eliminate PvP altogether.
Some people want to get rid of co-op zones.
None of those things will affect your game. They are all optional features you can choose not to use. So you have no legitimate reason to object, other than trolling.
So if you voice any disagreement with those ideas it's solely because you enjoy downing those ideas for the fun of it.
[/ QUOTE ] Just throwing wanted to point out that a few of the things you mentioned would effect everybody.
[ QUOTE ]
No, what got this board moved to this section was the behaviour of Shiverwraith and KittyKrusader
[/ QUOTE ] In all fairness to those two, it was a group effort that got this section moved down here. If it was just two people they would have been banned and that would have been the end of it.
[ QUOTE ]
What?!?!? It's not an important issue because YOU say it's not an important issue? I hope you understand that people have differing opinions on what issues are important, so an issue that's not important to you may be very important to someone else.
[/ QUOTE ]
Umm...okay, I was talking in comparison to other things that are going on in the country right now. The economy, housing crisis, job creation, medicare reform, social security reform, two wars, etc. Comparing those to whether or not weed is legal and saying that it's just as important is not a issue of opinion, I believe. Even the people that I know are in favor of legalization of pot (including myself, though I don't use it) don't consider it to be as important as many other issues.
If you think that the decriminalization of marijuana is as important as the things I listed above, then that's your right, though I do question your perspective of scope.
[ QUOTE ]
I generally hate this argument, especially given the lack of programming knowledge among forum-goers. You can use this argument to object to every single suggestion that isn't your #1 priority.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you can. And that's what makes it great. It doesn't mean that it's a position that you need to argue about, just that it IS an argument against the position of the suggestion.
If I want features A, B, and C, and you suggest feature X, then it's perfectly alright for me to say that I'd rather have features A, B, and C over X. All that needs to be said against this argument is this: "okay, assuming that the Devs did want to put this in, what are the mechanical and/or exploitable reasons against this idea."
That simple sentence takes personal feeling out of the equation for the discussion. Certainly, it will most likely pop up anyways, but by putting that in the argument, you show that you are looking for non-personal reasons against the suggestion.
If the OP says something along the lines of "I want X," then a perfectly valid argument against it is, "I want Y." If X takes time away from developing Y, then it is putting your desires ahead of someone else's. It goes both ways in this. And it's not a bad thing. Yes, developer time is limited. We know that. It's a fact. What we don't know is how long a particular feature would take to put in and whether or not it would take time away from other features.
Now, even without knowing the eact code, we can make some assumptions, especially those of us who know what Devs do what. For instance, if someone comes in here and says that they want Powerset X, and I want Powerset Y and that making Powerset X will take time away from Powerset Y, then that seems reasonable, since the same Devs would work on each. But if you say that you want 20 new badges, and I say that it would take time away from Powerset Y, that doesn't seem reasonable, since it's different developers working on each. So there are certainly times when the argument is more reasonable than others. To dismiss it in general, though, isn't such a good idea.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
I think you'd see better suggestions, and see those suggestions hashed out better in this forum, if the development time argument wasn't so prevalent. Since we know development time is limited (but don't know what that limit is or how it's allocated), and we don't know how much development time is required for each particular suggestion, I don't think there's any real value in having individual players speculate on the development effort required for most items.
[ QUOTE ]
Umm...okay, I was talking in comparison to other things that are going on in the country right now. The economy, housing crisis, job creation, medicare reform, social security reform, two wars, etc. Comparing those to whether or not weed is legal and saying that it's just as important is not a issue of opinion, I believe. Even the people that I know are in favor of legalization of pot (including myself, though I don't use it) don't consider it to be as important as many other issues.
If you think that the decriminalization of marijuana is as important as the things I listed above, then that's your right, though I do question your perspective of scope.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you understand why people who have a house, a secure job, aren't in the military, and are too young to really be concerned about social security or medicare might not list those things as being of high importance to them. Many people are arguing that legalization would be a huge boon for the economyÂ…Anyway, the point being that the mother with a kid fighting oversees is likely to put more importance on the war effort and the mother whose only son is in jail on a drug charges is likely to put more importance on the decriminalization of drugs.
Allowing transfers through an easy means would not harm the market in a drastic way. Making enhancements free would instantly destroy all market values for such and ruin the market entirely.
As far as your argument goes your "Free Enhancements" would be a whole lot worse than my transferred influence.
And "twinking" as you define it is stupid if anyone can do it given the right circumstances. "Twinking" as it is defined for the majority of MMO's means you are able to use something that you are not powerful enough to get for yourself (ie, a drop from a dungeon that is limited to level 46+ being usable by a level 32 character and giving stats beyond those available for other level 32s) to great advantage. There's no great advantage here when someone uses some extra influence to green up their enhancements because they can never get above the limitation of their own level.
Just make up another word, or keep using that "tricking out" phrase you seem to like so much (even though it is not fitting to the situation either).