Tenebrae can you please read through what you have written before you post. It is very difficult to try and understand your points when your posts consist of jumbled, angry rants.
Just a quick example, I cannot take you seriously with things like:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenebrae
Bigger or smaller , SF is BROKEN and NOTHING you say or do or think is going to change that fact .
|
Which is undeniably an opinion not a fact, or:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenebrae
People is going to laugh at you if you keep throwing nonsense and telling ppl that makes some reasonable arguments that they are the ones that make no sense.
|
Which has poor grammar, unnecessary insults, opinions stated as fact again, and just makes it clear that your entire post hasn't been read through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenebrae
1-You CANT argue that there are other problems to solve to argue AGAINST solving a problem.
2-You CANT argue that because reworking SF doesnt solve other inherent game design problems Anet SHOULD NOT rework SF ( and 600/smite )
Bigger or smaller , SF is BROKEN and NOTHING you say or do or think is going to change that fact .
If you cant understand 1 and 2 as facts and see they are 100% logical ,no one ( including ANET ) can do anything for you. People is going to laugh at you if you keep throwing nonsense and telling ppl that makes some reasonable arguments that they are the ones that make no sense.
|
If I re-write this to state what I believe you are trying to say but more clearly (correct me if I am wrong):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenebrae(modified)
1. You are arguing that since there are more fundamental problems, fixing this one "surface" issue is irrelevant. I disagree, since although only fixing a small part of the real problem, at least something is being fixed, and this can only be a good thing.
2. This is actually the same argument as point no. 1, but specific to SF rather than a more general and abstract statement.
We both agree that SF is a problem with the game, a broken skill.
I assert that my argument is logical, and hope that you can understand it lest you be ridiculed by greater beings.
|
Now, I have my own counter-argument:
Firstly, my argument relies on all builds varying in how powerful they are for farming, and thus some builds will be better than others. If the game was such that for any area there were 4 or 5 different builds, all of which were equally effective and better than any other, then this argument fails straight away. I am of the opinion that this is not the case, and that there is almost always only 1 build that excels for any particular task.
Let's draw a line to represent the power of builds:
Weak.............................................. .......................................Strong
...............|........|.................|....... ...............................................|
..........balanced..55............Obsidian........ ..................................Shadow
............PUG.....monk..........Flesh........... .....................................Form
Since SF is so strong, it doesn't take very long to farm an ecto.
Now, SF is nerfed:
Weak.............................................. .......................................Strong
....|...........|........|.................|
Shadow.balanced..55............Obsidian
..Form......PUG.....monk..........Flesh
I am just going to stretch the axis of this so we can see it more clearly:
Weak.............................................. .......................................Strong
....|...............|...................|......... .............................................|
Shadow....balanced.............55................. ...............................Obsidian
..Form.........PUG................monk............ ...................................Flesh
Look familiar? OF is not as strong as SF was, it takes a lot longer to farm an ecto. But now Obby Flesh looks just as over-powered as SF used to be.
Your argument is that by nerfing SF, a small part of the overall problem is fixed, and that this is a good thing to do. The rather subtle and easily missed point here is that, this argument relies on the premise that the greater problem can be fixed bit-by-bit. That by continually fixing small parts of the problem, eventually the entire problem will be fixed.
I do not think that this is the case. By continually nerfing builds, there is actually an infinite cycle, and you are no closer to fixing the overall problem than before you nerfed anything. One could in fact argue that it is bad to nerf SF, since it is probably more likely for people to quit because SF is nerfed than to start playing again.