[Kel]

I think the initial post is a bit inflammatory and unneccessarily one sided. Normally, I wouldn't post in response to one person's point of view but your post was a good example of one extreme 'side' of every balance argument that goes on so I wanted to post my thoughts. This isn't aimed at you so much as the statements that are represented here (which you happened to make in this case).

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:
Well, the current whine du jour seems to have moved off somewhat from VQs and clam hoarding to "castle spamming."

People said what they had to say. Is it a whine du jour because they didn't keep beating it into the ground for a month ? Those people still feel that way so calling it a whine du jour lacks foundation and is inflammatory (as opposed to if it was inflammatory but had a valid point behind it). Would it be better if they said something about it EVERY day of every week of every month so it would no longer be a whine of the day ?

Whether or not any of these activities may be broken, why does it seem that the first reaction of people unhappy with these is to propose nerfs, rather than strategies to deal with the tactics in question?

Why does it seem that the first reaction of people that use the strategies is to call everyone else a whiner or a newbie rather than make a point about the actual subject ?

Or has everyone proposing nerfs done extensive testing of the various strategies and proven that they can't be beaten?

Representing extremes is fine lawyering and good drama but it isn't really fair. Don't you think it is likely that the truth is in the middle ? That *most* people probably have tried several different things but it was neither their 'first reaction' nor have they done 'extensive testing and proven they can't be beaten' ? Honestly, don't you think the truth is in the middle here ? Do you really think that every complaint comes from a single game experience ?

And if it can be beaten, why would people equate that with it being balanced, other than that they have run out of logic ? I mean, if you want to use that argument, every single unit in the game is exactly as good as every other unit because there are open ended dice rolls and anyone could win any combat at any specific time.

Or are some players just wishing that the game was designed differently--to suit the fact that they don't like playing against a given strategy?

I think it is inappropriately disrespectful to assume that everyone who brings up a balance discussion is wrong, not because of specific points but rather to dismiss them and assume negative character traits about their personalities. Why do they all have to have ulterior motives, based on being weak willed, rash and whiny ? I mean, that is basically the answer that some people use for every balance discussion.

Tthis is probably true in some cases, don't get me wrong, just as there are people on the OTHER side who don't want changes in their game for the *exact* same reasons. For either side to dismiss arguments based on anything other than actual, valid points, on the subject itself, demonstrates both a lack of respect and a losing argument, imo.

- Kel

Thank you for enduring my brief rant.