Arguments Present that are bad for ESO, and games in general
Maintenance for the week of March 31:
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – April 2, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] Playstation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – April 2, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – April 2, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 6:00PM EDT (22:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – April 2, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] Playstation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – April 2, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – April 2, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 6:00PM EDT (22:00 UTC)
Amunari
✭✭✭
I want to tackle some key argument i keep seeing on these forums as well as in some games.
"how long have you been playing, you don't know enough" or "your just bad, get good"
This argument predominately comes from individuals that advocate for games with large amounts of complexity. Ultimately, this position falls upon the bases of egotism. Why is this said?
When it comes to choice in games, you ultimately have depth, or complexity. Some developers intentionally add complexity to the game, or it is a direct byproduct of the systems designs (the way things work in various aspects) in the game.
[snip]
In all cases we find that intentionally designing the game with complexity results in a (almost always) direct statistical gain on player characters. This means that players who have the time to invest in complexity, and ability to do so will come out on top always over other players.
The alternative to complexity is depth. Depth is similar to complexity in that you gain a "choice" or form of "customization" in a game, however, it does not have the negative drawbacks of complexity. Lets look at an example:
Complexity
10% of your agility is converted to attack power
Depth
10% additional attack power
In the above example you see a similar mechanic, one that is often found in games. However there is some hidden mechanics that are often common in mmo's that hide the fact that in the above example the complex based option is far superior. Why?
In traditional mmo's you will often find that +agility will give you armor, dodge, critical strike, critical strike chance, attack speed, attack power or a number of other stats depending on the game. Some games give two or three, while others one or two.
So by stacking agility there is a break point to which you gain near or equal amount of attack power, and the raw stats that come with agility. For example
1000 attack power = 10 attack power bonus (depth)
1 agility equals 2 attack power = complexity
So stacking 100 agility equals 200 attack power, and 10 attack power from the above trait/talent. This means that the complex option is far, far superior to the depth one, but only for those who are able to invest time in this to learn that this situation is far better then the depth for those who invest said time.
So, we come to the statements made above "get good" and "you just did not play long enough to know". The truth is this arguments are only result of individuals who are looking to exploit the games hidden mechanics in an effort to abuse others to gloat or flex over them and that is egotism.
The developers cater to casuals, which is bad for the game
Did you know that about 85% of an mmo is casual? From a perspective of what is better for the game, and the company, it is clear that catering to 15% of the population is definitely not the way to go. From a business perspective you would be killing your game.
So why then should the development team listen purely to the top players in the game?
The truth is that hardcore games are generally superior to casual players, but this makes sense as they generally invest far more amounts of time then casual players. Its kind of like comparing someone who spends 4 hours on his craft a week against someone who spends 20. there really is no reason in a general sense why the hardcore crafter would not be superior in his craft, or even have superior knowledge.
The same applies to mmo's. So as developers what we really want to do is set up the game to have depth and build the game for the average and slightly above after curved individuals. Luckily in most mmo's this is focused in the same area for both casual and hardcore players, since the majority of the two fall in the general "average" and "above average" area's of the "skill" curve, with hardcore players performing slightly better in all ranks of play (bad, to exceptional).
So in short the game should be built around the casual player for the sake of longevity and stability of the game and the company, not the minority of the hardcore player base. Sadly the result of this is some alienation of the hardcore players as most of them fall in the realm of egotism and the result of that is the changing of above complex systems to ones with depth, which tends to upset them. They need to learn that until they can fill a game with 85% of the population and millions of players being hardcore, they will never get to make the say in the games direction, and rightfully so.
Because of this ZoS should at once drop all communication with top players and go to casual input about the game. As much as the hardcore players will not like this, the make up the majority of the game.
Hope this clears up some things.
[edited for off topic content/ discussing other games]
Edited by ZOS_FalcoYamaoka on April 26, 2020 4:07PM "how long have you been playing, you don't know enough" or "your just bad, get good"
This argument predominately comes from individuals that advocate for games with large amounts of complexity. Ultimately, this position falls upon the bases of egotism. Why is this said?
When it comes to choice in games, you ultimately have depth, or complexity. Some developers intentionally add complexity to the game, or it is a direct byproduct of the systems designs (the way things work in various aspects) in the game.
[snip]
In all cases we find that intentionally designing the game with complexity results in a (almost always) direct statistical gain on player characters. This means that players who have the time to invest in complexity, and ability to do so will come out on top always over other players.
The alternative to complexity is depth. Depth is similar to complexity in that you gain a "choice" or form of "customization" in a game, however, it does not have the negative drawbacks of complexity. Lets look at an example:
Complexity
10% of your agility is converted to attack power
Depth
10% additional attack power
In the above example you see a similar mechanic, one that is often found in games. However there is some hidden mechanics that are often common in mmo's that hide the fact that in the above example the complex based option is far superior. Why?
In traditional mmo's you will often find that +agility will give you armor, dodge, critical strike, critical strike chance, attack speed, attack power or a number of other stats depending on the game. Some games give two or three, while others one or two.
So by stacking agility there is a break point to which you gain near or equal amount of attack power, and the raw stats that come with agility. For example
1000 attack power = 10 attack power bonus (depth)
1 agility equals 2 attack power = complexity
So stacking 100 agility equals 200 attack power, and 10 attack power from the above trait/talent. This means that the complex option is far, far superior to the depth one, but only for those who are able to invest time in this to learn that this situation is far better then the depth for those who invest said time.
So, we come to the statements made above "get good" and "you just did not play long enough to know". The truth is this arguments are only result of individuals who are looking to exploit the games hidden mechanics in an effort to abuse others to gloat or flex over them and that is egotism.
The developers cater to casuals, which is bad for the game
Did you know that about 85% of an mmo is casual? From a perspective of what is better for the game, and the company, it is clear that catering to 15% of the population is definitely not the way to go. From a business perspective you would be killing your game.
So why then should the development team listen purely to the top players in the game?
The truth is that hardcore games are generally superior to casual players, but this makes sense as they generally invest far more amounts of time then casual players. Its kind of like comparing someone who spends 4 hours on his craft a week against someone who spends 20. there really is no reason in a general sense why the hardcore crafter would not be superior in his craft, or even have superior knowledge.
The same applies to mmo's. So as developers what we really want to do is set up the game to have depth and build the game for the average and slightly above after curved individuals. Luckily in most mmo's this is focused in the same area for both casual and hardcore players, since the majority of the two fall in the general "average" and "above average" area's of the "skill" curve, with hardcore players performing slightly better in all ranks of play (bad, to exceptional).
So in short the game should be built around the casual player for the sake of longevity and stability of the game and the company, not the minority of the hardcore player base. Sadly the result of this is some alienation of the hardcore players as most of them fall in the realm of egotism and the result of that is the changing of above complex systems to ones with depth, which tends to upset them. They need to learn that until they can fill a game with 85% of the population and millions of players being hardcore, they will never get to make the say in the games direction, and rightfully so.
Because of this ZoS should at once drop all communication with top players and go to casual input about the game. As much as the hardcore players will not like this, the make up the majority of the game.
Hope this clears up some things.
[edited for off topic content/ discussing other games]
3
-
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭ESO is a six-year-old game. That means a couple things.
A. The Devs have their own vision and existing priorities. They may look at player desires, but their plans come first - see practically every major update or new system added.
B. ZOS is not going to fix what isn't broken. They aren't going to revamp what's already sufficiently profitable. Their focus is on quarterly content releases, crown crate cosmetics, and fixing the stuff that hurts their profit - primarily performance issues, as we see in the official performance improvements thread.
C. ZOS is trying to fix what's fundamentally broken while keeping players engaged.
Broken: Performance
Broken: Champion Points, with a who-knows-when revamp in the works
What keeps players engaged: quarterly content releases, events, and constantly grinding to be meta after every update (These may not be the most enjoyable for everyone, but they work to keep the majority of players engaged, and that's what counts.)
D. The vast majority of ESO is already balanced in favor of casual players and has been for years.
1. Overland content is easy, balanced for brand new players who get dumped into the latest chapter. ZOS also nerfs DLC dungeons to improve completion rates if needed.
2. ZOS is constantly exploring ways to change their combat system to raise the floor/lower the ceiling, as we saw with their off-cycle PTS. The benefit of having a variety of players test these changes is that experienced players are more likely to test it and find out "Hey, ZOS, this didn't help casual/average players. Actually, it nerfed them, but it buffed high DPS players instead. Is that working as intended?"
ESO is a six-year-old game. What that doesn't mean:
That its ripe for putting in the money, time, and effort to totally revamp whole swathes of gameplay that already work/are profitable or making big systemic changes to fix relatively small issues that can be addressed with individual fixes. The last big, sweeping revamp was the obviously broken Groupfinder and that took months to rebuild and then a couple months to make sure it worked properly.
What it does mean:
ESO is ripe for small changes that make a big impact on areas of gameplay. Recent examples include Multicrafting, Guildfinder, and better placement for housing items. Small additions or changes that improve QOL are far more likely to get added than big, sweeping changes to gameplay.14 -
MusCanus✭✭✭✭✭I want to tackle some key argument i keep seeing on these forums as well as in some games.
"how long have you been playing, you don't know enough" or "your just bad, get good"
"You don't know enough" and "your just bad" aren't arguments in a discussion, it's an argument why you're not worth discussing something with. Take it this way.11 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I am not sure if your a dev alt, or have some sort of internal knowledge because if not either then you are definitely speaking out of place and should stop posting replies to my threads like you have singular control of zos's development direction. You talk from a position that is like your are in authority at zos and that is concerning me (because that means there is no real future for this game due to its leadership not knowing what to do with the game, a concept i seem to keep getting when i hear things like "they did this, then reverted back", something if seen kill other games (like firefall).
Any studio will favor small changes over large, this game does not need small changes, it needs to tackle major issues, like no competitive pvp, and dps quing for pve. Those sorts of problems are highly destructive to new, and old players.
As for revamps to cp, it would be a lot cleaner with just less points to push everywhere which probably just means a level count reduction (to say 15 levels after 50 which will give placement immense value), so reworking the current system is pretty easy, if your doing the lazy-dev approach and not really worried about long-term improvements.
As for light/heavy attacks the charge mechanic is the problem, promise. It feels bad. Fixes geared around removing it would improve it significantly. For example applying a new bar on the gui that builds up with light attacks, after it hits cap it gains a glow animation and players can hit a key to unleash heavy attacks, or a singular heavy attack. this removes all real skill application out side of when to use it, and makes it feel incredibly good. The constant charging is clunky and really makes the entire system feel bad (similar to how the weapon swap feels).
Next, i want to tackle "not fixing what is not broken", broken here is subjective to opinion. If you asked more experiences devs bad systems like "quing as heals to dps" is definitely "broken" and needs a design pass.
Lastly,
STOP POSTING "WE WONT CHANGE THIS BECAUSE Its XXX YEARS INTO GAMES LIFE". Its utterly ridicious for you to be saying that. LITERALLY every game gets changes this far in, and far, far later. the fact that you say that make me want to reach through the screen and slap you for sheer stupidity, or clearly not knowing anything about game development (Regardless of what ever position you may/may not have at zos).
It would be far more better for you to just say honestly "we dont have development resources for that". Its an ironclad position.
I speak as someone who's been paying attention to how ZOS acts during updates and as someone who's been reading their official posts for years. Those are easily searchable on the forums and its not that hard to extrapolate their intentions from those posts, the things they've released, they things they've said they're working on, and particularly the things they haven't been working on.
And I appreciate actual debate. Just telling me to "stop posting X" or throwing out insults like wanting to "slap you for sheer stupidity" do not actually constitute convincing arguments in support of your position. I will address your arguments this time, but I don't intend to waste my time further if you cannot be civil.
As for your issues...
1. No competitive PVP - YMMV on how successful they are, but ZOS is already addressing this with MMR and experimenting with the group queue, while constantly changing PVP combat every single update.
2. Fake roles in Groupfinder
Many players have attempted to suggest systemic changes to fix this. ZOS seems happy to let players handle it on an individual basis by kicking the fake role players. Evidence for that - its been a consistent problem for years, yet ZOS hasn't changed a thing since requiring that players can only queue for one role at a time. They also completely reworked the Groupfinder recently...and didn't change anything to address this problem. If they wanted to, that was their best chance.
3. CP revamp - nobody knows what the Devs have in mind. The last they said in an interview, its still an internal WIP, same as the last combat update it was mentioned.
4. I trust you explained this to the Devs during that PTS cycle. Since you desire more input in the game from casual players, the PTS is an excellent way to provide that and, as we've seen update after update, the PTS is often the only chance for players to actually change systems that the Devs want to implement...unless the Devs are dead-set on implementing it their own way, which is also something we've seen update after update. If we're going to increase the input from casual players, getting more casual players on the PTS is the best way to start.Edited by VaranisArano on April 26, 2020 2:58PM8 -
ZOS_FalcoYamaokaadminGreetings,
We had to remove some posts due to violating our rules involving baiting and bashing. Please keep your posts constructive and civil. If you have any questions about the actions being taken, please take a moment to review our community rules here.0 -
Sarannah✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Removed post as I misread the topic at hand!Edited by Sarannah on April 27, 2020 10:07AM1 -
MusCanus✭✭✭✭✭Removed post as I replied to someone who misread the topic at hand!
Edited by MusCanus on April 27, 2020 10:25AM2 -
TheShadowScout✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Can be a valid argument when people start discussions or make posts that are in ignorance of the base functionality of ESO, like free weapon & armor selection for example."how long have you been playing, you don't know enough"
Though its usually better to at least point out -why- they "don't know enough" for their arguments to be valid in detail. I mean, how else can they learn?
Lets take it from some in-game dialouge:"your just bad, get good"
Every game has a learning curve. This is as it should be. Doesn't mean that its bad to have to "git gud or git rekt", also doesn't mean people ought to expect to be competetive right off the bat against those who spent five extra years on the "git gud" part - nor that the game should be changed to allow for that sort of thing.
Which also doesn't mean this argument is always valid... tho often newcomers DO make discussions that boil down to "Why is ESO not like -that other game they played-" instead of looking how eso is different and adapting to this game instead of whining they want it to be like the games they are used to (which in turn would put people off since then they would go like "Meh, its just a -that other game- copy, lame...".
Yeah they do cater to the casuals, or the game would be shut down because casuals are the majority of the players. And while that -can- be bad for some... it does not have to be if the developers find the right balance, something they always strive towards - perhaps that is a little skewed at times, but that is why they keep fiddling with it.The developers cater to casuals, which is bad for the game
Also, look at the forums sometime, you will find the very same argument made over and over in different flavors... "The developers cater to PvPlayers, which is bad for the PvE-game" they say, or "The developers cater to questers, which is bad for the PvP-game" - and its all just whining about this or that. As is the one about casuals. The developers add enough stuff for the veterans too as time goes by. but people tend to vent every now and then when someone asks for something they themselves see more then enough of anyhow...
Well said.VaranisArano wrote: »ESO is a six-year-old game. That means a couple things...
All of it. Complete agreement.
Also not so small -additions- to the system.VaranisArano wrote: »Small additions or changes that improve QOL are far more likely to get added than big, sweeping changes to gameplay.
Like has been said, they are unlikely to rip out their system and replace it from scratch.
But...
...they might add stuff, not just QoL improvements, but gameplay stuff, like new skill lines (like they did legerdemain, TG, DB, Psijic... the list really does not have to stop there, they can add tons more if it fits their plans, thus giving all players hours upon hours gametime working on mastering new skills) or new crafting options (like poisons or jewelry, or furniture... there is still some more they could get to there as well), or even some new mechanics... but they will be far less likely to mess with systems that already work well enough as that would be a much larger effort for less profit (since they cannot bundle reworking old systems into an expansion like they could new additions!).
Might be more constructive to learn the system ESO has and think about what can be -added- instead of -changed- if people want to brainstorm about ideas that could benefit ESO... just sayin. 2 -
virtus753✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭I'm actually shocked with how many players seem to agree with you. Do you guys not realize saying those things are actually insults! Thinking players are bad is one thing, but saying they are is insulting. Especially if you are unwilling to help them improve. And keep in mind... most people do not say those kind of things as were posted here, they are usually more rude with more swearwords. Also, if you feel people are not worth discussing something with, why even say anything at all?... Hell, why did you queue for a random if you weren't going to atleast expect something to be going wrong. It is not a speedrun.
By not learning others, or giving them the chance to learn, you will only hinder others and yourself in playing the game. As the next time you meet them they will still be as 'bad' as they were. And this is only when players will even stick with the game in which they just had a terrible time after already queueing for an hour, and again waiting for another player or having to requeue for an hour because they were kicked.
Either give someone advice, leave, or kick them. But do not insult them. And leaving yourself or kicking them are also bad choices. As kicking them won't teach them anything, while giving them a bad experience. And leaving, means you are saddling the next player who comes into that group with your mess to clean up.
And this is not even considering the fact that players who claim others are bad, are usually the bad players themselves. But they can't see it, because people usually blame everyone else. Also, if you queue for a random with pugs, you should atleast be expected to give some room for players to improve.
These types of things are actually what destroys a game, as no new players will be flowing in. They will most likely have a bad experience and leave ASAP, as it is a game. Games are played for and meant to be fun. This actually makes most of the good/pro/elite players one of the worst enemies of a gaming company.
I see some points with which I agree in general, but be aware that a great deal of the particular context is missing here in this thread. The forum record is not complete, and that’s especially true in this case. Understand that this is not a one-off response to a one-off post. It is a reaction to many things across many threads, many of which are no longer available to be read as they violated forum rules. That makes it impossible to recover the complete context of this particular post.
Speaking only for myself, I would never say “get good” to someone, but I would say things along the lines of “please try the game and experience it more than a week or two before spamming the forums claiming to understand all of its problems, trying to dictate how to fix them, and advocating that the company stop all communication with 15% of their player base because they’re not in the majority.” That’s not addressing the tone and language used throughout such posts, which is in large part responsible for the record being as incomplete as it is. I also use the term “spamming” because that is how it was officially characterized in a different thread.
Phrasing aside, I do believe it’s fair to ask someone to experience a game before pronouncing judgment, and to refuse to engage with someone who insists on doing so repeatedly in ways that violate forum rules. This is not the case of a player who is looking to learn the game, and the responses here reflect that.2 -
Firstmep✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭OP:
Your entire post is so vague, I am not sure what point arenyou trying to get across.
If you have been following Eso for any length of time, than you would know that the vast majority of new content gets developed with casual players in mind.
Veteran players can complete overland content with no skills or gear and using a steering wheel, that's how easy it is.
Zenimax does listen to casual players, they're actively looking to reduced the combats complexity, their last attempt was just on pts a few weeks ago.
Also casual doesn't mean bad, tons of people play this game casually and have been around for years, should we also not listen to them?
Top players are usually more experienced than new players, which is why developers listen to them.
I have been playing this game since launch, and have been through the new player experience of learning the nuances of this games combat, I literally know 100s of people who are the same, it can be done.
As far as elitist players and ego concerned, not every veteran player is like that, being good at the game(or any game), does NOT make you a jerk.
Being a jerk does.
As an example:
A few years ago I had an argument with a player who was in my trading guild about something(irrelevant topic, really).
When looking at his name I noticed he had 50cp, so I quickly asked him if he was a transfer from another platform or region. Ofc he wasn't, and needless to say his argument was exactly what you would expect from someone who doesn't know better.
Heres the thing, I don't argue with a theoretical physicist about quantum mechanics and tell him he is an egotistical jerk, because guess what, he knows better.
2 -
GreenhaloX✭✭✭✭✭
✭I want to tackle some key argument i keep seeing on these forums as well as in some games.
"how long have you been playing, you don't know enough" or "your just bad, get good"
Been playing too long or not long enough.. does it matter? It's a video game. I just can't take playing a video game so seriously. Yes, I am not as good at playing a video game than others. I only strive to do and be my best in real life. 0 -
qwudd✭✭✭I think imaginary categorisation of people in distinct groups seldomely serve us well. Attributing identity to people (hes casual, shes hardcore) as if this says anything meaningful mostly means we detach from the issues at hand being discussed.
Usually such labels are used to dismiss someone as "egotistical", "not like me", having/the wrong motivations and so on. Funnily enough this labeling process mostly seem to show up after people start getting agitated and/or emotional, as a way to, in the end,shut down communication and leave.
Discussing someones prior gaming experiences is seldomly a fitting substitute to adressing the points made on a specific subject (except perhaps if someone repeatedly sabotages discussion and such). It can certainly not invalidate a well made argument regardless of who makes it.
I believe that what game designers try to do, is to keeping up several ways for people to experience motivating and enjoyable progress in-game.
I think we should refrain from getting stuck discussing "casuals" and "veterans". Noone except perhaps SoZ have enough knowledge and/or statistics to even remotely aproach what these supposed clearcut groups want,do or need.2 -
MorganaLaVey✭✭✭✭
Well thats great but i think you missed the Point of a lot of these arguments, can't speak for other games but at least for ESO.I want to tackle some key argument i keep seeing on these forums as well as in some games.Spoiler
I think when ever is see the "you don't know enough", "your just bad, get good" stuff in this forum it is true. Lets take the LA/HA changes ZOS wantet to do es an exemple. Lots and Lots of casual who where happy about them and defendet them, when all they did whas widen the dps-gap and F%&king Healers & Tanks, same with morrowind LA changes, dragon DLC dps-nerv, ... lots of uneducated opinions. and lets not even start with bad PvP players who want stuff nervt all day long because they dont know how to play and the Anti-Ani-Cancel/ LA conspiracy theorist. But i've never seen this argument made to flex over anyone because he doesnt know some mysterious hidden mechanics that dont even exist in ESO. Or can you give me an exemple ?"how long have you been playing, you don't know enough" or "your just bad, get good"
This argument predominately comes from individuals that advocate for games with large amounts of complexity. Ultimately, this position falls upon the bases of egotism. Why is this said?
When it comes to choice in games, you ultimately have depth, or complexity.
[...]
So stacking 100 agility equals 200 attack power, and 10 attack power from the above trait/talent. This means that the complex option is far, far superior to the depth one, but only for those who are able to invest time in this to learn that this situation is far better then the depth for those who invest said time.
So, we come to the statements made above "get good" and "you just did not play long enough to know". The truth is this arguments are only result of individuals who are looking to exploit the games hidden mechanics in an effort to abuse others to gloat or flex over them and that is egotism.
When someone in this Forum/ game complains about casuals, he normaly means players who can neither play nor are interested in learning it. most Vet. Raiders are casuals too. noone says ZOS should not cater to them...The developers cater to casuals, which is bad for the game
Did you know that about 85% of an mmo is casual? From a perspective of what is better for the game, and the company, it is clear that catering to 15% of the population is definitely not the way to go. From a business perspective you would be killing your game.
So why then should the development team listen purely to the top players in the game?
[...]
So in short the game should be built around the casual player for the sake of longevity and stability of the game and the company, not the minority of the hardcore player base. Sadly the result of this is some alienation of the hardcore players as most of them fall in the realm of egotism and the result of that is the changing of above complex systems to ones with depth, which tends to upset them. They need to learn that until they can fill a game with 85% of the population and millions of players being hardcore, they will never get to make the say in the games direction, and rightfully so.
Wy should ZOS not cater to player who are not interestet in learning how to play the game properly? i think thats obvious.Because of this ZoS should at once drop all communication with top players and go to casual input about the game. As much as the hardcore players will not like this, the make up the majority of the game.
Your right with "the game should be built around the casual player" but that for sure doesnt mean ZOS should listen to themMorganaLaVey wrote: »Lets take the LA/HA changes ZOS wantet to do es an exemple. Lots and Lots of casual who where happy about them and defendet them, when all they did whas widen the dps-gap and F%&king Healers & Tanks,
I also I want to tackle some key argument i keep seeing on these forum.
This argument predominately comes from individuals that *insert what ever fits the Topic*. Ultimately, this position falls upon the bases of egotism. &
The truth is this arguments are only result of individuals who are looking to *insert what ever fits the Topic* in an effort to *insert what ever fits the Topic* and that is egotism.
This argument predominately comes from individuals that are upset because they got kicked from a Dungeon or dont get in to fancy raid groups. Ultimately, this position falls upon the bases of egotism.
The truth is this arguments are only result of individuals who are looking to *** on People in an effort to make them look bad with out the need of any good argument against them. and that is egotism.
Hope this clears up some things.
1
