I just don't think you're seeing the other side of things.
I don't wish to be rude, but I believe it seems like you're dismissing my disagreement as lack of understanding. I get it. I understand your case. I just don't believe it has any merit.
If a player can't get a party without adhering to the playerbase's conceived notion of the best setup, they have two choices, don't play or conform.
That is a grandiose assumption, and it is so obviously not true. The entire playerbase doesn't share the same consistent view of min/maxing.
You transition from comparative statements to superlative ones without batting an eye.
"People discriminate somewhat based on gear," becomes "People won't ever accept less than the best."
"Some people are min/maxers," becomes "Everyone else is a min/maxer."
"I might have trouble finding a party," becomes "I will literally never get a group."
You act like because a few players on a server are vary discriminating, require nothing but the best gear to party with them, that you are somehow forced to conform to their minority viewpoint.
In every game I have played there have been elitists. Likewise in every game I played you could find a group with craptacular gear. You might not get a group as fast as someone with good gear. You might not get as well equipped a group as someone with good gear. But you could get a group. You aren't forced to conform to anyone's viewpoint. However, none of that even matters because I have still proposed that transparency doesn't make players any more elitist and you have still yet to contest that assertion with anything more than a statement to the contrary.
I'm just trying to point out how some people like to play, ie: not bogged down in formulae and charts that in the end only eke out a minor increase compared to another alternative.
Yes... I already acknowledge that at the beginning of the thread. I'm sayign that providing transparency takes nothing away from that demographic. They aren't forced to read formulae and charts. They aren't forced to min/max. People aren't going to be more elitist because of transparency. No one is hurt or loses any freedom by making stats transparent, while one hurt is hurt by allowing stats to remain ambiguous. No one loses with transparency.
You have said yourself that "players in FFXI were more elitist about gear." In my experience, it wasn't always like that. First it started with job combinations. Then weapon choices, then finally gear builds. And the correlation that I have seen is that the more we decrypted the game, the more narrowminded some people got.
You're making the correlation/causation error even if your anecdote accurately reflected history.
The elitism had nothing to do with decrypting the game and everything to do with the game aging. The same situation is true of WoW or any MMORPG. When the game is new, people are still figuring out how to play. It's not that they have any more or less desire to stat max, but that they need to learn the game first before they attempt to do so. When the game is new, people are busy leveling. They have the same desire to stat max as they would later on, but it's not worth their time to get +1 armor they will out level in 20 minutes.
And while I would never tell someone that they shouldn't play that way, I only ask that courtesy from other people.
But you are telling them how to play. By not having transparency you are forcing others to play in ignorance of what stats do. You are forcing them to play the way you want them to.
Is fallacious in that it uses loaded wording that assumes that anyone who can prove that your gear is not the best, will refrain from instructing you on the right way, or that the playerbase as a whole will tolerate decent gear in lieu of elite gear.
Completely ridiculous. You are taking the situation to a ridiculously implausible extreme. You are literally
saying here that any player who is capable of recognizing that 2 str is better for a warrior than 1 str must necessarily
, because of some magical compulsion
, point out this fact to every warrior he meets who is not wearing +1 armor. You do understand this is what you have literally
I'm not disputing that secrecy hurts power gamers, I'm disputing that transparency doesn't affect casual gamers.
Yes, and I say you're wrong, and you have yet to contest my claims on that.
I think its worth noting that I have never seen a website that features an in depth mathematical analysis of the damage of a Hadoken versus a Shoryuken.
You would if it were reasonably possible. Too much other information, such as counters, safety, combo chaining, are far more important than how much raw DPS a move can put out on a dummy target.
I completely respect your disagreement, I only humbly ask that others respect the more casual gamers who are smart enough not to show up to the Dunes in lvl 1 RSE, but choose a B+ rated weapon over an A for anything outside hardcore play.
I can't speak for everyone of course, but I do respect those player. I don't spend my MMORPG days walking up to undergeared players, emoting laugh, and then insulting their parentage.
However, I do want to be clear on what at least I consider to be respect. I'm never going to go out of my way to insult an undergeared player, but if I see a warrior and a warrior+1 both seeking (and not knowing either of them I assume them equally competent), then as a party leader I'm going to pick the warrior+1 every time. Edited, Sep 26th 2009 12:24am by Allegory