PVP Worlds...Follow

I wanted to login a few minutes after you made that post to say this, but alas, I lost my information and spent a few days wondering if I should just make a new account...anway.

By observing someone and then making a statement about said observation (example: "You're being a ****, Tom.") you are making an inference. Whether or not that inference is valid or not doesn't matter. At least in the context of statistics. You are taking information you have observed, processing/analyzing it, and then stating a conclusion. In this example, you aren't really making statistical inference on Kachi's arrogance (though I suppose you could if you had prior data on how many times people used those words and actually said "I'm being arrogant" or whatever). Statisticians place probabilities on their inferred statements using theoretical distributions, which I doubt you were doing consciously, though I don't doubt you were using personal experience with language and prior encounters to make the statement.

Anyway, this doesn't add much to the thread, it has just been scratching at the back of my head for a while.

Now, for my on topic take on the thread. I agree with open world PvP probably doesn't belong in a FF themed universe, for several reasons that have been talked about already in the thread. I do agree an arena or battlefield (battlegrounds from WoW) would be appropriate. FFT for the psp for example had the ability to challenge others to a battle. And I don't see why you have to limit PvP to simply beating the living hell out of another guy. Triple Triad, Tetra Master, chocobo racing, even chocobo breeding added in there would be awesome throw back to the golden era of FF games, and still be PvP.

I'm just curious as to how this is "just a fact" and that it should "just be accepted." The premise of your entire argument can not be quantified, or has not been at least, and is by a matter of definition, not a fact.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2013 5:17pm by Parathyroid

I have to agree with you here. I tried GW2 because it looked really awesome, and the idea that "the trinity was dead" seemed really cool. Then I did beta/live. I realized I actually liked having a defined role for PvE (nevermind PvE in that game wasn't great to begin with). I normally end up going with a tank class. It is usually the first class I level in an MMO, and the class I play most consistently. I thought with GW2, a tank would be general, anybody can tank, you tank by dps'ing, etc. Instead it was more of...nobody tanks, nobody heals, everybody goes ranged and kites. Granted I didn't play long after release for the reasons I stated previously, but that's what it felt like when I called it quits.

What's actually incredible, and you can see this in WoW, the number of tanking/healing classes doesn't actually have much to do with queue times. There are people who will only queue as DD on a paladin, even though they could potential do all three. Adding in DK to WoW didn't help the tank situation, as DK's queued as DPS. Adding in monks didn't do much, if anything, either as again, they only queued as dps. The problem seems tanks/healers take a majority of the blame for encounters going badly, and/or are expected to out gear/know everything about the encounter if it has been more than 2 weeks since the expansion was released. This makes it very hard for a newbie to break into the tanking game.

Also an interesting observation, when WoW did their queue for raids, tanks actually had 30-60 minute queues, dps were around 10-15 minutes. Which is telling of another problem in that raids only needed 2 tanks, but 17 dps. So single group activities required 1:3 tank dps ratio, where raids needed a 2:17, which is incredibly different.

At any rate, I have no great solutions to these problems, only observational/anecdotal examples and some weak conclusions based on them. Though I do agree that, in my humble opinion, watering down roles to get rid of these problems isn't good, and just leads to a pretty boring game overall.

Having difficulty in my desire to reply, honestly. Conversations here derail too much and it makes me omit possibly critical converational tangents in favor of not involving myself into the drama.

Moving on...



See, this argument the two of you are having seems silly. It's like expecting a ram fighting a tiger and expecting the ram to use it's hooves and teeth rather than its horns, because that's how the tiger fights.

Of COURSE a regular DD class is going to win in a Damage Dealing race against a healer. That's not how a healer fights when it's alone. The idea of combat balance is that the two's classes have their own tools for fighting one another so that in the end it becomes a factor of skill not a factor of "Hurr I kirr yoo caz I dealz damage!"

White Mage, or probably more importantly Conjurer, seeming that would likely survive better , is a casting class. It will fight like a casting class, not a melee. This means kiting, disabling, and damaging the opponent down at range.

Where as a Melee like Dragoon or Lancer will want to close that range, deliver stuns and burst the enemy down before they can be CCed and the enemy recovers.


The chances of a White Mage surviving if he stands toe to toe with a dedicated damage dealer, meaning just sitting there tanking damage. Should be fairly small, even if he built himself up defensively. But if he plays like he should, keeping the enemy at a range, taking advantage of the enemy's own weaknesses and playing at their own strengths? That's where it should be a '50/50' issue. The mechanics should be designed so that, aside from equipment and level differentials, each fight should feel 'close' on the one on one scale. This is because if it's close in the single player scale, then the group combat becomes much more intriguing - a matter of tactics rather that stacking the least weak class to absurd levels.

Right, well I guess I'll leave it to you to tell me what I think of myself and others. You don't know what my attitudes are. You're not a mind reader (yes?). To me, the idea of feeling superior or self-important over knowledge of video game mechanics is completely laughable. It's so far removed from my feelings of self-worth that you might as well accuse me of being arrogant because I have pretty okay toenails, and frankly I'm sorry--if not dubious--that you think anyone would actually think that way. I'm more apt to believe that what's happened here is that you sensed confidence that to you, seemed unworthy, so you had to do your civic duty to try and take me down a peg.

I am not arrogant, and just because you inferred otherwise doesn't make it so. I don't think I'm better than or more important than you. I do think in certain realms I have a better way of doing things. Now, you obviously feel the same way or you wouldn't take it upon yourself to tell me why you're right in all of this and I'm wrong. But I find it funny that when you're condescending, you're just "calling it like you see it," but when I point out things of that nature

You feel that I've slighted you--fine. I can apologize for that, but I do feel that I should have the opportunity to explain where I'm coming from.

Re: the argumentative jackass. I honestly wasn't calling you a jackass by some transitive property of insult. You were the one who kicked that off with telling me, "You lose," which is about the most juvenile argument tactic I can imagine. Now, if I call that tactic juvenile, to me, I'm not directly calling YOU juvenile, but the practice of doing so juvenile. If you don't do it, I won't think you're juvenile (nor will you seem like an argumentative jackass, at least by virtue of that). But I guess wherein your rules of engagement are concerned, I don't see how I'm the one who brought the arrogance into the conversation when you had just as much confidence that I was wrong as I had that I was right from the get-go (and you definitely did not understand my point right away).

Re: evolution. At this point in the conversation, you most definitely did not demonstrate an understanding of what I was saying. You might have understood SOME of the major premises, but not the supporting rationale behind them. When you say, "No, I understand," you don't understand how badly you really don't understand. You don't understand the mathematical systems of game balance--you haven't once tried to engage me through that perspective, which is fine--I don't expect most people would want to talk about it or want a lecture on it, and I wouldn't want to give it in a format like this, so I wanted to keep things simple. But when you say that you understand, that's literally equivalent to saying, "No, I get it. You think that people came from the same ancestors as monkeys. Here's why I disagree," without making any effort to be enlightened on the biological or anthropological concepts that inform the other side of the argument.

All that is fine! I wasn't saying that you were stupid for not understanding! But when I deal with people whom I consider mature, and I inform that that they don't understand something, they don't automatically assume (he thinks I'm stupid because there's something in the world I understand! I understand everything!). They try to understand by asking directed questions to broaden their understanding of an unfamiliar perspective. They understand that whether I'm right or wrong, they can learn something from the discussion. They understand that I'm giving them feedback on the conversation that allows them to ask questions that they want answered, so I don't just jump into a lecture that might not even address the gap in understanding. But when the only effort you make to understand the other side is taunt them like a FOX political pundit, "Oh yeah? What about X. You can't explain that!" then the opportunity for an objective and productive discussion is lost.

That opportunity is always on the table as long as I'm around. However much you feel that I've contributed to the escalation of a conflict, I can step back and bring it down to earth on my end so that I've at least done my part for getting back on track. I have tried to do that here, for all the good it did. In particular, if you do feel slighted, then remaining respectful yourself, rather than making me think that you're weak, will just make me feel like that much more of a jackass for offending such a respectable person.

Nonetheless, I apologize if I've insulted you. It was unintentional. I really hope you believe that, because otherwise you leave me with no means of recourse.

For me, it is important that I am understood. I know that people misunderstand my intentions as well as my arguments. I'm used to it! And I don't blame other people for that. The concept of blame/fault doesn't really even exist in my worldview. Because of differences in worldview, I don't always understand how others will perceive the things I will say. And for me, being able to be understood for who I am--to not be misjudged--is important. It doesn't matter to me if you personally misjudge me, but when I can't communicate myself to you, it means that I haven't socially navigated the situation the way I intended to. I have the benefit of knowing that I'm not the arrogant, mean, jerk that you think I am. There's a disconnect that I'm trying to bridge, all while staying on topic and not launching into lengthy expositions about what I really think as some sort of public "Dear Diary" entry.

So again, I sincerely apologize to anyone that I have personally offended. I do tell people when I perceive fault in their method or views at times--I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I try to do so constructively, and not turn opportunities for civil discourse that could realize personal growth into childish arguments. But for as high as I strive, I am only human, and don't see myself as being above anyone else.

So tl;dr for everyone, here's what I'm going to do: Ask that you accept my apology, and in the future, if you perceive that I am being arrogant, I hope you will understand that this is just me failing to display confidence gracefully. If I seem to be suggesting that you don't understand something, please understand that it's because I'm trying to identify what I perceive as the communication failure in the discussion--not an insult towards you. And if I insult you, just tell me, "That insults me," and I will apologize with all due sincerity. I do not enjoy upsetting other people, and if you ever start to think otherwise, I would appreciate the benefit of the doubt.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2013 1:47pm by Kachi

I feel this about sums up the debate Kachi, probably from both of our sides:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/686_10151651211356578_1075723688_n.jpg

Seriously though, I don't take offense by anything you've said. I've had far worse directed at me on these boards, heck, far worse than Ostia has called me as well. I really don't care at this point. I've already apologized a couple times, so I'm going to forego it again and just move on. I find your manner of debate incredibly boring and conceited, and it's just not worth my time anymore. Have a good one.

So, we've come to the consensus of no world PvP in XIV correct?

I address both of those things in the post above.

Don't mind me, I'm just insulting people now... I'm going to explain it away a few days from now.

Hilarious... Congrats Kachi, you somehow managed to sling the mud around and eventually walk out clean as a whistle.

He's got a definite hard-on for you, that's for sure.

There's some serious hive-minding going on here. I don't know who started it but daddy's gonna finish it.