View Single Post

markcymru's Avatar


markcymru
01.11.2013 , 11:12 PM | #452
Quote: Originally Posted by -IceHawk- View Post
It is not petitio principii simply because you disagree with the premise.
No, but a valid argument cannot depend on the form of the words. In effect, you’ve left out a premise: viz ‘core’ means PvP etc etc.
When instead ‘core’ means ‘what makes the game playable enjoyably for markcymru’, your argument comes out like this: Considering how well the game works, does anyone really expect Bioware to spend massive amounts etc etc [to which the answer would be “Yeah, of course”].
Your argument comes out as: Considering how badly the game handles the things I treasure, does anyone really expect BioWare to spend massive amounts etc etc.
By framing the features that you treasure as ‘core’, or shall we say ‘fundamental’, you make your conclusion apparently inescapable. If you had described them simply as ‘the features I treasure’, your argument wouldn’t really stand up – it would simply be you saying ‘I want BioWare to spend their money on what I want’.

Quote: Originally Posted by -IceHawk- View Post
I offer as evidence the innumerable threads dominating the more travelled forums (General and PVP) demonstrating a clear concern on the part of the player-base concerning PVP-Balance and Bug Fix/Optimization cycles.

In the aftermath of 1.2 the PVP forums have essentially exploded, with concerns over balance reaching a new zenith with the confluence of Rage-Spec Marauders and Backlash-Barrier Sorcerers more recently.
You will recognize at once that no inference can be drawn about relative numbers of pro-PvPers vs. Pro-SGRers in the player-base from relative numbers/activity in the forum [I'm trying to keep my syntax manageable by using an easy-to-remember tag for the two sides]. I mention this because for a true debate to take place, there has to be some way of agreeing on the premises.

We all know…
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal.


Just as valid as an argument, though, is…
All men have immortal souls
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates has an immortal soul.


Willingness to accept either one of these arguments depends on one's willingness to accept the first premises.
You [IceHawk] can make arguments based on ‘small minority’ ‘minuscule proportion’ etc and they might have all kinds of logical validity, but unless you can provide some justification for your premises your arguments have as much or as little weight as the ‘immortal souls’ argument above would have to an atheist.
Quote: Originally Posted by -IceHawk- View Post
I highly doubt that mDPS or DPS Sorc/Mercs would support your contention that their particular Endgame core component is in anything but a broken state.
Probably true, but it seems to me that there’s always someone complaining about their class being nerfed, and if other posters in other threads are to be believed, trying to achieve class balance is a perpetual problem with all MMOs. So from my perspective, why should BioWare keep spending resources to fix an ‘unfixable’ problem for a minority of the playerbase [even if PvPers were most of the playerbase, which I dispute, the people complaining about their own class are a minority within that playerbase] when they could be fixing a real problem [need for new story content that includes SGRAs]
Quote: Originally Posted by -IceHawk- View Post
I would frankly be unsurprised if Bioware placed new companions, SGRA-capable or otherwise, on the Cartel Market at this point.
No argument here – BioWare may well do that. It would be a big mistake as far as I’m concerned, but that’s just my opinion.
Quote: Originally Posted by -IceHawk- View Post
That different segement you refer to is the overwhelming majority of the player-base. That is evident both in the superintending concern Bioware places on their satiation at every patch and new piece of content as well as the general dismissal threads such as this one have receievd.
But you could just as easily argue from that evidence the following:
Both player segments are the same size [or even that the ‘SGR’ segment is bigger], but the fix that one segment requires is easier to pull off quickly than the fix that the other segment requires. BioWare obviously chose to make one segment happier quickly rather than leave both segments unhappy for a long time. And being strapped for cash, that decision kept being made for months until finally enough pressure was brought on them to commit to providing SGRs, beginning with a gesture on Makeb.

Quote: Originally Posted by -IceHawk- View Post
Also, how are people who are dedicated to the story-mode of the game (presumably leveling alts) going to engage in that endeavor with SGRA unless Bioware develops class-specific SGRA-capable male and female companions?
You’re making the assumption that that’s the only way that would keep us Pro-SGRers happy. But it could be done differently. Here are some suggestions that have been made:
http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=583335

Quote: Originally Posted by -IceHawk- View Post
Which returns me to my original question.
If Bioware lacked the funding to extend class-specific missions in Makeb, what makes any of us think they are going to dedicate the time and resources to create class-specific SGRA companions that will fit the current 1-50?
Development on Makeb began a long time ago and was continuing while BioWare was going through what we all believe was a financial crisis. So they probably did what they could with the resources that they had – hence the Makeb that we’re going to get. That was then -- F2P has happened along the way, and it’s quite possible that the cash is rolling in [God knows I hope so ! ]. In that case a good move on BioWare’s part would be to re-invest that cash into providing as much new stuff as possible to keep as many segments as possible happy. And I expect one of them will be my segment… which I believe is a sizeable chunk of the base.
Quote: Originally Posted by -IceHawk- View Post
My argument has never once been that SGRA should not be included in the game.
That is the caricatured assumption individuals assume simply because I find the manner of the SGRA proponents' interactions with their opponents more than a little distasteful.
This is an interesting comment. Have you seen the way the anti-SGR crowd interacts [probably not... because the distasteful ones are quickly deleted and the posters suspended/banned]. How would you have characterized the ‘interaction’ of a poster, in a thread that was deleted today, who suggested that he would appreciate the option of dragging an ‘SGR’ character behind his pick-up truck?


Quote: Originally Posted by -IceHawk- View Post
This game did not lose a million subscriptions because SGRAs were not included and I doubt we will gain any net subscriptions if they ever are actually included.
We don’t know, do we? Maybe they lost a million subscriptions because the players found the whole concept of endgame boring – No story! No romances!
Who knows? To me, that scenario is just as plausible as the scenario that you imply: viz players finish the levelling, with its stories, and then want to do pointless PvP and PvE [pointless because it doesn’t lead anywhere other than cranking up your brownie point score] month in month out.

Quote: Originally Posted by -IceHawk- View Post
I would prefer Bioware spend its time and my money on firming up its principle three components of gameplay and move on to special interest group concerns such as SGRA, SSSP, Guild concerns, mini-games after a major PVP-Balance Patch, and Optimization Patch, and maybe a new look at crafting.

After that they should move on to including these extraneous pieces into the game, ideally in mini-content patches on a regular basis.

SGRA is not a priority to a vast majority of the player-base, nor should it be, I would argue, a priority to Bioware at this moment.
I’m not sure what the names of these informal fallacies of argumentation are, possibly ad populum, maybe ad hominem, possibly petitio [depending on your exact definition]. We keep seeing this type of thing – ‘pandering’, ‘agenda’, 'special interest group’, ‘vocal minority’ – where the opprobrium attached to these terms is intended to strengthen the argument. Quite often, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the argument deflates at once if you use more neutral terms [like ‘a certain proportion’ or 'a specific segment']
“The comments on any article about feminism justify feminism.” — Lewis's Law