slajzer posted:
Gaining "past knowledge" takes more than some effort. Reading up on old patch notes is a fkn mess and in the end it doesn't really give you anything anyways unless maybe if you experienced first hand, in which case old notes are mostly pointless anyways.
[color
urple] lol yes you are correct. It would be rather mind numbing. But if one does not want to undertake such a task then that person needs to recognize when to defer to others who have more knowledge/experience. [/color]
Saying your points are less credible when it comes to class balance because "
OU WEREN'T THERE MAN!!!" is just stupid.
[color
urple]Well yes, that would be rather stupid.
If that is what you read then I did not say what I intended. I did not think I was invalidating all ideas put forth by those with less experience. I believe that I did say there are many with limited experience that could (and do) have valid points.
When I was validating the idea of past/old knowledge being of importance (rather than it being of no importance as the OP was saying), I was primarily meaning the specific instance where a player with limited experience comes up with a seemingly illogical concept and someone with more knowledge from the past would use a more complete knowledge base to give advice as to why the idea put forth by the less-experienced was not as good as the less-experienced would think. Then the less-experienced ignores the logical reasoning and sticks to their original suggestion like it was the Holy Grail, or perhaps the less-experienced player defends their position and then adds more unbalanced suggestions.
I was trying to make the point that less-experienced players can have valid ideas but the less-experienced should also be more open to those with a more experienced opinion, because those with less-experience are often handicapped by their lack of knowledge (not ‘always’ handicapped).
Noobs (less-experienced players) can, and often do, have valid ideas/suggestions.
In this case though the OP’s ideas seem ill conceived yet no matter how it is explained, the OP seems to refuse to see the logic of others who are more knowledgeable concerning the way Mythic balances the game. [/color]
Is pre archery patch stuff relevant to todays archers? Not really... You could bring up points like "I prefered it this way", but thats it.
Same goes for wardens pre shield patch
Or valk/thane/friar pre style patches
Or animists pre shroom cap
etc...
Or any other major change to any class that effectively changed how it played.
[color
urple]I agree. Very specific and old character skills that no longer apply are not the general old experience that is important when considering changes to characters.
What is important is the reasoning as to why Mythic would have buffed or nerfed one of those abilities. Also of importance is how Mythic more heavily balances around groups and is less likely to favor balancing individual characters against individual enemy characters, or that Mythic does not balance characters because someone died, or that there may be a class of character a players toon may never be able to kill one on one, etc. . . Then there is all the extensive Pendragon testing (by players) of specific character abilities and pet buffs and pet levels, etc. . . that many old players are familiar with (just because I limited my examples does not mean the number of examples is as limited). The examples given should make the point that there is old knowledge that can, and is often, valuable to know when considering suggestions that strengthen a characters abilities..[/color]
That said, I don't agree with anything she said in her original post
[color
urple] I concur.[/color]
The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is.
Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can,
and keep moving. - Ulysses S. Grant
Only the dead have seen the end of war - Plato
