Schnitzelnagler wrote:

Garthor wrote:

I ignored most of his arguments because they were not grounded in anything even resembling reality.

Shouldn't you, instead of ignoring, provide arguments on why and how his arguments do not resemble reality?
I heard that people usually do something like that in discussions, at least in the non monologue ones ;)

Do you feel a strong desire to argue against crazy men ranting about the Lizard People?

Garthor wrote:

Arguing that there wouldn't be any problems if the game was literally perfect is absolutely insane.

He never mentioned a perfect game or environment, but rather one that takes care of specific given facts.
That is hardly insane.

"But, again, that is no issue if you prevent any difficulty problems in the first place"

Garthor wrote:

No, I know what balance is. The only person making this mistake is you.

I'm sorry, I won't play the 'No you are wrong' game.
If you want to provide facts and argue, I'm gladly join in, if you just say that you're right and I'm wrong, I'm too old for that.

Turnabout's fair play. If you can say I don't know what balance is, I can say you don't know what balance is.

Garthor wrote:

See, this would be a problem with the idea of it being beneficial to stand still and beat the crap out of a monster for hours on end. If you made a game that was based around a game rather than a punching bag simulation, there wouldn't be an issue.

I could now argue that Tibia is a big commercial MMORPG, which brings in a couple million Euro a year and that in a capitalist environment people deliver what has customers, but that would not prove my point as well as I want to.
Instead, I think that we maybe should find a common ground as what we like to see in a game and argue from there.
I find the 'gain experience and then raise your skills' concept boring and sad, since I never understood why you get more versatile in healing someone by punching a beast, or rescuing a lady from a dragon.
Now, some games 'restrict' gaining experience on a skill through certain limitations (like you don't gain anything after the xth hit).
While I see this as one solution to a problem that comes with the benefits of a nice system, I see it as a bad one.

> I like a roleplaying solution much better for a roleplaying game. Such as... exactly. Monsters getting stronger like you do!

Nobody claimed that you'd have to hit a monster all day, but I want to decide what I do! Freedom of choice is something I greatly value with games I play.
If that means that I want to spend a day hitting a ghoul, so be it.

The bolded line does not belong. What the hell does it have to do with anything you've said? In fact, what does anything you say here have to do with anything? Humorous anecdotes about "I PUPPIE-PUNTED MY WAY TO POPEDOM" don't actually support any argument you're trying to make.

Garthor wrote:

There is no benefit from this crap that would not be achieved better through other means. Hell, I don't even think the second half of that sentence is needed.

Yes, you seem to be certainly interested in arguments and discussion. Constructive feedback is always such a nice thing.

If people had rational arguments I'd be interested to hear them. If people babble on about unrelated topics then I'm just going to spend my time mocking them for it, which also happens to be interesting.

Again, nobody has put forth a solid reason why this would be beneficial to a game. If you're looking for variety, toss a variety of monsters around. If you're looking for "realism", what the hell are you doing playing a game with monsters? If you're looking to establish a sense of world, there's far better ways to establish it than making difficult monsters slightly stronger.

I think the issue is that people see game design as some sort of game (har har har), and don't actually bother to take it seriously. The attitude seems to be to throw anything and everything in the pot and hope it works (see: further elaborations on Shiniru's ideas... I assume, I couldn't stand to read through them). I think people would benefit from being able to narrow their scope and actually consider ideas more than the half-second it takes to think, "Is this going to cause me physical pain? No? Good idea, then!" A game with five good ideas is massively better than a game with five good ideas and a hundred bad ones.

Schnitzelnagler wrote:

Garthor wrote:

Do you feel a strong desire to argue against crazy men ranting about the Lizard People?

If I do not want to discuss, I actually do not post on the forum. Which means, when I do post, I'm open for arguments and am going to try to prove my points, by supplying my own arguments.
Seeing how you just go and tell Kaioken to 'shut up', I'd guess things are different for you. You want people to accept your point and what they say is of little relevance to you, since you know you are right on everything, which is an inevitable fact.
Should this not be the case, I would like to excuse for jumping to the conclusion, yet this is the way you come across on the forum, at least to me.

I'd prefer if people were better off after my contributions than they were before. If that means telling them flat-out how horrible their ideas are, so be it. In reality, they'll probably ignore me and blame their failure on something else, but oh well.

Garthor wrote:

"But, again, that is no issue if you prevent any difficulty problems in the first place"

I am sorry, but I do not see what you want to hint at, given the posting you linked at is by Kaioken and has little relevance to my statement, or what you your replied.
At least non that I could see. So would you please be kind enough to point it out a bit further?

Kaioken was claiming that the solution to the problem was for the game to "prevent any difficulty problems in the first place", which is to say to have a game that was perfectly balanced. This is what we call "magical fairy-world thinking" and is so mind-numbingly stupid that it does not even deserve a response.

Garthor wrote:

Turnabout's fair play. If you can say I don't know what balance is, I can say you don't know what balance is.

I beg to differ.
I claimed that I think you mistake balance for pampering and I provided reasons for my claim.

'By no means does a monster have to be in a fixed range, nor is a monster that gets stronger through combat an immanent threat.'
Balance does not mean that every player can kill any monster s/he encounters. Fleeing can be an element encouraged in a role playing environment.

Beg all you like, it doesn't make you right.

"Balance" in this case means that the game gives the player an experience which is not so easy to be boring, or so difficult as to drive off players. A situation where the difficulty will WILDLY vary due to factors outside the control of the developer is not conducive to this ideal.

Perhaps somebody may disagree where the point of balance is, but that's okay because they can always adjust it themselves... maybe they think that if it's harder people will enjoy it more enough to make up for more people leaving in frustration. Because you think I'm confusing balance and "pampering," I'm inclined to believe that you don't know what either of them mean.

Garthor wrote:

The bolded line does not belong. What the hell does it have to do with anything you've said? In fact, what does anything you say here have to do with anything? Humorous anecdotes about "I PUPPIE-PUNTED MY WAY TO POPEDOM" don't actually support any argument you're trying to make.

I am sorry, but that is hardly the case.
You said that there would not be an issue if the 'idea of it being beneficial to stand still and beat the crap out of a monster for hours on end' would be parted with.
I said that such a game can be very successful (I call an annual profit of 7 digits a success) and provided an example. I claimed that in a capitalist environment, it is perfectly valid and legal to carter for such things, given there is a demand, which is proven by the income.
I claimed that the freedom of choice on how to play a game is a good design pattern. Players and game magazines alike have stated that 'an extra amount of possibilities in the game' made Ultima 7 the successful game it used to be.
I had a friend who used to build up a pirate fortress on a lonely island. And he could, since there was the freedom of choice.
So, why not allow for players to 'train on a monster all day long', if they choose to? As long as you provide alternatives in the game, I see nothing wrong with supplying options.
I then stated that as the OP discussed a role playing game, I for sure en favour a role playing solution to limiting options from getting one sided.
This seems like putting thought into game design, as you emphasis. Keeping with the general theme of a game, blending restrictions in as to look like features instead, if these restrictions serve a 'greater goal'.

Freedom is not always a good thing in games. Freedom includes the possibility of there being a button you can press to instantly win (see: cheat codes). They do not necessarily make a game better, ESPECIALLY a multiplayer game. Like it or not, the entire purpose of games, in every single incarnation, is the LIMITATION of options. This is why games have RULES, and not RIGHTS.

And again, you still aren't explaining how screwing up the intended balance is a "solution" to anything at all, much less a "role playing solution to limiting options from getting one sided".

You may be putting "thought" into game design, but it's still the fuzzy lovey "oh yes everything is fine let's all throw it in and have a sayance" happy-thought that does not actually lead to good games in 99 out of 100 cases.

Garthor wrote:

If people had rational arguments I'd be interested to hear them. If people babble on about unrelated topics then I'm just going to spend my time mocking them for it, which also happens to be interesting.

So, either Geldonyetich, Kaioken, digitalmouse, Shiniru and me are too dumb to see how horribly unrelated and irrational our arguments are, or you are not trying to see the point. I confess, I am biased and the majority does not have to be right, but maybe it should yield enough weight to rethink and reread the arguments provided, trying to see the points through their eyes.

Funny thing: the majority does not help your argument here. If a million people can't provide ANY reasonable justification, that speaks rather strongly to there being none at all.

And, while we're on the topic: what the crap does "freedom of choice" have to do with monsters leveling up? Do THEY need more freedom of choice, or something? Maybe if we stretch and say if you change something from "annoyingly difficult" to "literally impossible", that's reducing choice, not increasing it. You're arguing on the wrong side, here.

Perhaps you're arguing against my "stop throwing every half-baked idea into your game, dummy" statement, in which case I'll point out that in a multiplayer game, choice is illusory. By interacting with other people, you're going to get pidgeonholed into the optimal configurations or get decimated one way or another. See: WoW, FFXI, UO, just about every MMO ever.

Garthor wrote:

I think the issue is that people see game design as some sort of game (...), and don't actually bother to take it seriously. The attitude seems to be to throw anything and everything in the pot and hope it works (...). I think people would benefit from being able to narrow their scope and actually consider ideas more than the half-second it takes to think, "Is this going to cause me physical pain? No? Good idea, then!" A game with five good ideas is massively better than a game with five good ideas and a hundred bad ones.

Does not success validate a design pattern?
Do good reviews not validate a design pattern?
I assure you that I do see game design as a tricky task.
I assure you that I have read papers on different game design topics, such as balance.

There are exceptions to every rule. A particularly well-made game can get away with tossing every half-baked idea into it if there's enough there that you can completely ignore the horrible design decisions. It also works in a single-player game where you're free to screw around with things as much as you like. It does NOT work when you're forced into trying these horrible ideas, like arbitrarily having a horribly-tuned racing section in your game.

But I fear I'll have to withdraw from the 'discussion', as I am getting kind of too low, scratching on the edge of 'insulting' and jumping to conclusions about you.
Which is a clear sign that I should step out.

Nice way to both make personal attacks and sound like a saint for supposedly not doing so.