|
5 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 3:44PM
#351
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2007
|
A character might be a military genius, but that doesn't mean MT is automatic by any means: game design should outweigh flavor when it comes to potentially huge effects.
First of all, it's not a fact that giving Revan MT, represents 'flavor over game design'. It's just your opinion. With MT being a fairly rare ability, I think your pointing out that it's not automatic is stating the obvious. Of course it's not automatic. That should make you realize some thought was put into the decision.
Secondly, Revan is more than deserving of being represented in the game as a master tactician.
Thirdly, it's not like WOTC has a completely free hand in creating representations of SW characters. Everything has to pass by LFL licensing. I'm not saying it was, but we don't know for certain that some aspects of a mini's representation aren't specified by Lucas or his people.
Leif
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 3:47PM
#352
|
Date Joined:
Mar 12, 2007
|
but the Sith faction is an even better fit for him in terms of what the game needs.
No argument against what the game needs.[/quote]
One thing I found most intriguing, was Rob’s statement that they work from the characters themselves first, instead of starting in terms of what the game needs. That would mean that they didn’t start with, “Okay, the Sith need some sort of Force battery to stay competitive.”
They apparently went the path of, “Okay, we’re going to make a holographic Darth Sidious. What should he be like?”
Which is strange, from my point of view. 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 3:56PM
#353
|
Date Joined:
Nov 28, 2007
|
One thing I found most intriguing, was Rob’s statement that they work from the characters themselves first, instead of starting in terms of what the game needs. That would mean that they didn’t start with, “Okay, the Sith need some sort of Force battery to stay competitive.”
They apparently went the path of, “Okay, we’re going to make a holographic Darth Sidious. What should he be like?”
Which is strange, from my point of view.
Agreed. I'm not completely willing to buy that what the game needs doesn't factor in at all though. I think that sometimes the game does get what it "needs" under the guise of flavor. They also must employ something like this in order to prevent as many blatantly broken combos as possible. It's somewhat subjective though. Obviously they are designing the new pieces relative to the old ones, if only though using the same processes. If they didn't consider trying to satisfy the game from a needs point of view then we would surely be seeing all kinds of funky things.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 4:54PM
#354
|
Date Joined:
Oct 14, 2007
|
Ah, okay. I can see that as personal attacks against Rob and Wizards development, as if none of them would be reading the thread. I admit it's easier to avoid personal attacks against users, than it is to avoid personal attacks against the people who develop a subject you are critiquing. I admit to not often thinking about it, unfortunately.
I don't think it was a personal attack against anyone... simply that people try to make arguments that run completely contrary to the stated facts and then effectively ignore the rebuttals against their arguments.
But you can see the other side of the argument, yet you still take your position. People can make different value judgments on what a "mistake" is. And by "mistake", I'm referring to an unfortunate choice. 
Well that's not really a definition of mistake that I heard in the thread, nor the one that was being argued.
You and I and others have managed to avoid taking refutations personally. Both you and I, and others, have answered each others' critiques. It is circular because we fail to accept each others' answers as correct. The same reason people still give the same arguments about economy, politics, religion... even though minis is just a simple game.
That's not circular logic. Circular logic is something like A = B because B = C because C = A. That's the nature of most of the arguments I saw.
A statement like, "Darth Sidious, Hologram should have been Separatist instead of Sith" cannot be proven correct or incorrect. It is not based on fact, nor is its inverse based on fact. It's also not based on any basic tenet of morality or social good. Like Star Wars itself, it's just a playful thing, and people will of course disagree on the nature of it.
That's true. However, it can be argued that there is just as much, possibly more basis, for making him Sith than for making him Separatist (I think the two are equal in the context of the game, but hey, that's me). However, I don't think that was ever the issue.
Told that they are wrong? The other end has been "told that they are wrong" several times over, and yet they continue.
There's a difference between being told you are wrong by a simple statement and being told you are wrong by logic. When the latter occurs, it's time to either reevaluate your argument or give it up.
You failed to accept our counterarguments as valid rebuttals, and perhaps we failed to recognize yours as valid either. I'm not saying that both sides are correct. I'm saying that dismissing an argument as "circular", when it is no more circular than the other one, would be a mistake.
I didn't dismiss anything; I simply said that many of the arguments presented were circular (i.e. supported only by themselves), and that most of those arguing never answered the rebuttals given and simply kept parroting their original arguments. Remember that I also never took a side in this, except to say that it was both foolish and unrealistic to say that Sidious "should" have been Separatist.
My blog (everyone else is doing it...): http://ideas-abounding.blogspot.com/ "Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong. Paper, rock, and scissors, they all have their pros and cons." - Relient K DISCLAIMER: I'm not a nice person. MOTL Sale List: http://www.magictraders.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/087367.html#0  Sig by the modest, yet talented, zpikduM.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 5:15PM
#355
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2007
|
Well I agree S1AL on many points.
I happen to love debate, but I'm even more interested in logic and false logic (logical fallacy). Some people debate/argue strictly with a focus on 'winning'. If their argument has is not well grounded in logic, they will turn to false reasoning to create the appearance of data that supports their view. Example: Suppose I want to prove that red is most people's favorite color. If I can't find data that supports my view within the scope of all people who can perceive color, then maybe I'll refocus the scope of my sampling to just include people who drive red cars. Then I can say "80% of all people who drive red cars prefer the color red."
I honestly don't care that someone may not see things my way, even if it may seem otherwise at times. I am constantly challenging my own view of things. Most of the time I'm debating/arguing, I'm as much reaffirming my own reasoning on a matter, as I am presenting it to someone else. I'm more interested in feeling comfortable with my own view. If I don't feel completely comfortable with my reasoning on a matter, my perspective will be changed in favor of something that strikes a reasonable cord with me. What that means is that I will gladly abandon my present view, if someone introduces me to some greater logic or reasoning that better supports another view. I'm not married to my opinions. Give me a good reason to change them, and I will.
My point is simply that it's not correct to say one opinion is as good as another, or to assume that two people in a debate are arguing or reasoning in the same way, or for the same purpose.
Leif
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 6:59PM
#356
|
Date Joined:
Nov 28, 2007
|
I just noticed that the faction symbol used for the Sith in SWM is the same symbol used to represent the Old republic era or, as it is sometimes called, Sith era. It seems that, at least at one point, the Sith faction was based off the old republic Sith. At least that seems the most likely explanation of this to me. 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 8:34PM
#357
|
- SWMGamers Hall of Fame Inductee
- 2008 GenCon Star Wars Minis Champion
Date Joined:
May 11, 2005
|
I think its inappropriate to accuse someone of attacking you. And its against the CoC actually. You are asked to report "attacks" not respond to them.
Second, I don't need some special authority to tell someone to remove a false accusation of attack. Nor do I claim any. He can respond by doing what I asked, or not. His call. Did I tell him there would be some kind of consequence for his failure to respond to my request?
Seriously, these forums are getting out of hand. People need to learn what an attack is. Its written in the CoC if anyone is curious to find out. And those people arguing that I shouldn't have said anything, well that's your prerogative, but I think you are taking the wrong position. I would start with the person making the accusation who is out of line, and not spend a lot of time criticizing me for not accepting inappropriate behavior.
Back on topic - @Hex - one of the issues being brought up repeatedly by you is this supposed precedent that they broke. Yet, you are the only person arguing that position, you have not responded to any of the probably 8 pages worth of counter points showing that your position is indefensible, and have even argued that the designer doesn't have the right to create characters the way he does.... How is that a useful position for anything?
And now we are using the symbol on the card for the faction to make a point? That is stretching it. You should perhaps read some of the past comments Rob has made about the EU characters and factions. They know they are stretching a number of characters to put them into an existing faction, and its an acceptable choice because the move to even more factions would be even more troublesome.
I think I even remember Rob saying at one time that he was not a fan of the expansion to 10 factions that we have now, but I don't remember where I saw that. Either way, the faction symbol is merely that. It cannot be used to prove anything about Sid.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 8:36PM
#358
|
Date Joined:
Oct 14, 2007
|
I just noticed that the faction symbol used for the Sith in SWM is the same symbol used to represent the Old republic era or, as it is sometimes called, Sith era. It seems that, at least at one point, the Sith faction was based off the old republic Sith. At least that seems the most likely explanation of this to me.
Yeah, if that had any relevance to the debate at all, we should be debating why a Mandalorian symbol is used for the Fringe faction.
My blog (everyone else is doing it...): http://ideas-abounding.blogspot.com/ "Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong. Paper, rock, and scissors, they all have their pros and cons." - Relient K DISCLAIMER: I'm not a nice person. MOTL Sale List: http://www.magictraders.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/087367.html#0 Sig by the modest, yet talented, zpikduM.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 8:37PM
#359
|
Date Joined:
Oct 14, 2007
|
Second, I don't need some special authority to tell someone to remove a false accusation of attack. Nor do I claim any. He can respond by doing what I asked, or not. His call. Did I tell him there would be some kind of consequence for his failure to respond to my request?
You didn't "ask" for anything, Bill. It was either a command or a demand, neither of which is appropriate.
My blog (everyone else is doing it...): http://ideas-abounding.blogspot.com/ "Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong. Paper, rock, and scissors, they all have their pros and cons." - Relient K DISCLAIMER: I'm not a nice person. MOTL Sale List: http://www.magictraders.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/087367.html#0 Sig by the modest, yet talented, zpikduM.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Dec 11, 2008 - 8:41PM
#360
|
- SWMGamers Hall of Fame Inductee
- 2008 GenCon Star Wars Minis Champion
Date Joined:
May 11, 2005
|
You didn't "ask" for anything, Bill. It was either a command or a demand, neither of which is appropriate.
Again, by what authority can I force him to do anything? Its a request. And since its up to him to follow it or not, its the same thing. It was stern, but I think an appropriate response to someone claiming he was attacked when it wasn't even close.
Again, stop criticizing me, and criticize the guy who is claiming he was attacked when it was nothing of the sort.
|
|
|
