Everyone Has An Opinion About Warcraft

[OMGTwitchTV]

*puts on his nostalgic hat and rose colored glasses and inserts request

If you plan to roast me, at least read what it written first and ask clarifying questions. I don't mind the challenge.

First, let me acknowledge the idea that not every player starts or joins a combative conversation either here or in game. Some simply lurk as they do not want to paint a target on their back. Others, like myself, are not afraid of a little solid debate and passionate disagreement. These are a part of life, and are important aspects to healthy debate about games and their players. I feel as though personal opinion can still lead to productive conversation, even if it takes the occasional bump in the road because of (insert latin terms here), or simply the anonymity of the world wide web. None of us are the same, and will therefore have varying opinions about the game and each other.

So that begs the questions 'When will we go back to allowing other people to have an opinion? And when we do, will we use the rules for arguing like a gentleman?'. I mean, it is not a difficult concept. For those who have never heard of this prospect, you can read all about it here: The Lost Art of Civilized Discourse. Now, let me be clear, in the past I have been accused of trolling when simply telling the truth as I knew it, but I have also intentionally trolled just to be a dick. I feel like anyone with a single infraction on their account can say the same. However, when it comes to WoW, why are some posters vehemently defensive?

In almost every idea post here, or in the game itself, the author will either use, or have used against them a logical fallacy during the discourse of the conversation. Make no mistake, there are some horrible ideas presented in EVERY forum and in every game, just as there have been for the entire 18 years of WoW. There have also been some incredible posts, and I am not speaking personally of my own. I, like anyone else here who has posted an idea has made a few people cheer while simultaneously boiling the blood of others. I've been combative, dismissive, and patronizing. But, after 18 months away, I've come back with fresh eyes and see the people who love to fight, others who love to troll, and then those who only argue just to win every fight they are in.

My question to you: If you could create a post about ONE THING that means the most to you, what would it be about? Alternatively, if someone responds to your post here, are they doing it without Ad Hominem or any other logical fallacies? Did they take the time to ask clarifying questions to better understand your post?

[Snufflupagus]

If you could create a post about ONE THING that means the most to you, what would it be about?

Flying is bad for the game, should never have been implemented and removing it at any stage would make the game strictly better.

[Biomega]

Flying is bad for the game, should never have been implemented and removing it at any stage would make the game strictly better.

Flying is good for the game, should be free and unrestricted from the start and if so would make the game strictly better.

[OMGTwitchTV]

Flying is bad for the game, should never have been implemented and removing it at any stage would make the game strictly better.

See, this is a prime example of something to be discussed

[Caprias]

Flying is bad for the game, should never have been implemented and removing it at any stage would make the game strictly better.

Flying is good for the game, should be free and unrestricted from the start and if so would make the game strictly better.

Flying is bad but better than just boring ground mounts, I just tab out in both cases until I'm at my destination.

Traversal mechanics have been highly underutilized in this game since forever when it can be a bunch of fun gameplay in itself, that's why I'm positive towards dragonriding.

[OMGTwitchTV]

Flying is good for the game, should be free and unrestricted from the start and if so would make the game strictly better.

This however is a prime example of mocking someone rather than offering an actual opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Flying is bad but better than just a boring ground mounts, I just tab out in both cases until I'm at my destination.

Traversal mechanics have been highly underutilized in this game since forever when it can be a bunch of fun gameplay in itself, that's why I'm positive towards dragonriding.

If you could create a post about ONE THING that means the most to you, what would it be about?

[Biomega]

This however is a prime example of mocking someone rather than offering an actual opinion.

Let's be very clear here:

It's both.

[loras]

*puts on his nostalgic hat and rose colored glasses and inserts request

If you plan to roast me, at least read what it written first and ask clarifying questions. I don't mind the challenge.

First, let me acknowledge the idea that not every player starts or joins a combative conversation either here or in game. Some simply lurk as they do not want to paint a target on their back. Others, like myself, are not afraid of a little solid debate and passionate disagreement. These are a part of life, and are important aspects to healthy debate about games and their players. I feel as though personal opinion can still lead to productive conversation, even if it takes the occasional bump in the road because of (insert latin terms here), or simply the anonymity of the world wide web. None of us are the same, and will therefore have varying opinions about the game and each other.

So that begs the questions 'When will we go back to allowing other people to have an opinion? And when we do, will we use the rules for arguing like a gentleman?'. I mean, it is not a difficult concept. For those who have never heard of this prospect, you can read all about it here: The Lost Art of Civilized Discourse. Now, let me be clear, in the past I have been accused of trolling when simply telling the truth as I knew it, but I have also intentionally trolled just to be a dick. I feel like anyone with a single infraction on their account can say the same. However, when it comes to WoW, why are some posters vehemently defensive?

In almost every idea post here, or in the game itself, the author will either use, or have used against them a logical fallacy during the discourse of the conversation. Make no mistake, there are some horrible ideas presented in EVERY forum and in every game, just as there have been for the entire 18 years of WoW. There have also been some incredible posts, and I am not speaking personally of my own. I, like anyone else here who has posted an idea has made a few people cheer while simultaneously boiling the blood of others. I've been combative, dismissive, and patronizing. But, after 18 months away, I've come back with fresh eyes and see the people who love to fight, others who love to troll, and then those who only argue just to win every fight they are in.

My question to you: If you could create a post about ONE THING that means the most to you, what would it be about? Alternatively, if someone responds to your post here, are they doing it without Ad Hominem or any other logical fallacies? Did they take the time to ask clarifying questions to better understand your post?

You are not allowed to have an opinion, you have an opinion. It's up to you to stand by it, not up to others to accomodate it.

Additionally one should be careful with logical fallacies, as their application can lead one to ironically be fallacious as well. Better to keep a keen eye on the underlying logic (not implying you don't, but in general).

That said, most of the things i care about i have already posted about, though perhaps curiously to others the iffy part is the caring in my case. Health shite means that feelings (including caring) and memory can be erratic or absent, thus making it difficult to answer your question honestly and/or fully.

In regards to WoW i'd probably care most about discussions regarding gameplay systems (i.e. flight as they're going to try with dragonriding) or overal artistic theming (a bit ago i did a thread regarding biomes in example).

As to the quality of responses: It varies, but usually it's pretty decent. And when not? Well i'm not obliged to respond.

[Snufflupagus]

Flying is good for the game, should be free and unrestricted from the start and if so would make the game strictly better.

Can you define what element of what specifically makes the game “good” would be improved?

Can you articulate how free unrestricted flying would make the game better whereas instant teleportation to any location wouldn’t? Or would instant teleportation make it better still?

[OMGTwitchTV]

Let's be very clear here:

It's both.

Offering an opinion means formulating it and expressing it in a genuine and defendable way. When you mock someone with the reversal of their own opinion, it feels less like an opinion and more like Ad Hominem.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you define what element of what specifically makes the game “good” would be improved?

Can you articulate how free unrestricted flying would make the game better whereas instant teleportation to any location wouldn’t? Or would instant teleportation make it better still?

Simple answer: some players enjoy the freedom it offers. Not everyone eats their steak the same way, nor do they enjoy the same level of steak. Then there are vegans who do not consume steak on any level. Just because someone prefers it with Heinz 57 does not make them wrong. Just makes them different.

[fatgunn]

My question to you: If you could create a post about ONE THING that means the most to you, what would it be about?

Mythic+, as it has been currently implemented, is the most negative aspect of the game. It is successful only because it fills a niche as a competitive activity in the 30-50 minute range. It suffers from all the same toxic behavioral patterns as League of Legends, and for the same reasons. You are locked into a group of 5 people, most likely strangers, that you must depend on to succeed. Because of this, it fosters a community of elitism and gatekeeping. All of that wouldn't bother me if m+ remained as segregated as PvP is. However, being a PvE activity it has major crossover with the raiding community and has made that group worse. In my personal opinion, Blizzard needs to find a way to separate all the endgame activities into their own progression paths with minimal crossover.

[GreatNameForSmurfingExTee]

OP: "Everyone has an opinion"
Also OP: "Your opinion is invalid"

[OMGTwitchTV]

Mythic+, as it has been currently implemented, is the most negative aspect of the game. It is successful only because it fills a niche as a competitive activity in the 30-50 minute range. It suffers from all the same toxic behavioral patterns as League of Legends, and for the same reasons. You are locked into a group of 5 people, most likely strangers, that you must depend on to succeed. Because of this, it fosters a community of elitism and gatekeeping. All of that wouldn't bother me if m+ remained as segregated as PvP is. However, being a PvE activity it has major crossover with the raiding community and has made that group worse. In my personal opinion, Blizzard needs to find a way to separate all the endgame activities into their own progression paths with minimal crossover.

Sounds like a solid opinion, and since it worked for generic PvP vs Twinks back in Wrath, the same could work in this instance.

- - - Updated - - -

OP: "Everyone has an opinion"
Also OP: "Your opinion is invalid"

I've never said your opinion is invalid. I said your mockery is invalid. There is a big difference for those who comprehend the meaning.

[Evolixe]

Finally a thread worth investing some time into.. maybe? OP's got the right idea at least.

You are not allowed to have an opinion, you have an opinion. It's up to you to stand by it, not up to others to accomodate it.

Well you can argue your opinion but like the OP says you have to be willing to accept you may be wrong in your opinion.
If you're not willing to accept that you may be wrong then there is really no point in bringing it up.

As for the one thing that means the most to me? Eh we would have to get a bit too real for what i'm willing to lay out here I think.
Something in the game that means a lot to me is what we are getting in partial in 9.2.5. Cross faction gameplay.
However I also feel like without cross faction guilds the feature is incomplete and will not advance the game as far as it could when the game would truly be playable crossfaction.

[Biomega]

Offering an opinion means formulating it and expressing it in a genuine and defendable way. When you mock someone with the reversal of their own opinion, it feels less like an opinion and more like Ad Hominem.

Argumentum ad hominem is "you're an idiot, therefore you're wrong". That's not what I did. If anything, it's at best "You're an idiot. You're also wrong, for reasons not related to you being an idiot" which isn't an ad hominem, it's just an insult. And to be fair, mockery is fairly mild when it comes to insults.

But I did it for another reason: to show how easy it is to be hypocritical about such "opinions", as demonstrated by this reply:

Can you define what element of what specifically makes the game “good” would be improved?

Can you articulate how free unrestricted flying would make the game better whereas instant teleportation to any location wouldn’t? Or would instant teleportation make it better still?

Which was directed only at me, NOT at the first guy who said "flying is bad", which was something with literally as much justification or explanation as my post but seems to have gone over to the audience with a round of silent nods and tacit agreement.

THAT'S why I used mockery - to show that if you offer an opinion different from the populist paradigm you'll get questioned, while the opinion you different from isn't.

As to the defense of my opinion (or at least some deliberation on it), sure: I want content to be content; I don't want the getting-to-content to be "content". Movement is a necessary mechanic, and it's hypocritical to portray it as though it was some kind of deliberate feature. If more movement equaled more content, people would have to be against REGULAR mounts, too; heck, they'd have to be against running and not walking. But clearly that would be idiotic. The same goes for the "flying takes away the danger" argument - regular mounting takes away danger, too. Nobody is stopping to fight every random mob they come across. These days most people don't even get dismounted because of mount equipment (or simply being a tank). You don't actually fight things, you just run away - all you're doing with flying is increase the convenience, with practically no change to the actual combat you do.

Secondly, the oft-brought argument that flying invalidates things like jumping puzzles is equally inane of an argument. Flying gives you the OPTION of skipping puzzles, it doesn't force anyone to skip them. If you have the option of skipping them and choose to do so, then clearly you don't think those puzzles are that great content after all. So people who argue against flying on that basis are effectively saying they don't want OTHER people to have the option of skipping things; if it was purely about their own experience, the existence of flying would change nothing because they could still do them without flying any time they choose.

The only argument that has some merit is world PvP - an issue that would be easily solved by simply disallowing flying in War Mode. But if you did that, the number of people in War Mode would drastically diminish. Proving once again that if given the option, many people would in fact prefer to fly rather than do PvP and so once again what the people advocating against flying are really doing is not wanting OTHER people to fly. Imposing your preferences on others doesn't seem like an overall beneficial system to me when all you're doing is taking options away.

I also object to the argument that "the world feels less exploration-y with flying". In fact there's very little exploration in WoW as it is, and a lot of it actually involves minute details that you'd have to examine closely regardless of flying (like the secret mount puzzle stuff). If anything, flying allows for MORE exploration because it gives you access to otherwise inaccessible areas, and allows for better surveying of the terrain which helps you get to more interesting places. If "seeing the world" is your goal, flying is the objectively better vantage point. And if you prefer ground-based exploration for personal reasons, the existence of flying doesn't take that away from you; but the removal of flying DOES take something away from people who don't care about this kind of exploration. What's more, zones can be designed with flying in mind and facilitate brilliant vistas regardless of air travel - one prime example is Deepholm. The idea that somehow flying decreases the appreciation of the world is a smokescreen set up by Blizzard to sell people on the idea of wasting time on travel.

"Flying is bad for the game" is by and large just an excuse to take away OTHER people's freedom to skip. People who don't like flying are entirely free not to use it. To them the game would be almost exactly the same, because they can just opt to not fly and experience all the things they want to experience the same way they would without flying - but without forcing people who don't value that experience to do the same. That's why it's strictly better to have flying rather than not.

And now let's hear the other guy justify what everyone just swallowed as a valid opinion without much further inquiry.

[Snufflupagus]

Simple answer: some players enjoy the freedom it offers. Not everyone eats their steak the same way, nor do they enjoy the same level of steak. Then there are vegans who do not consume steak on any level. Just because someone prefers it with Heinz 57 does not make them wrong. Just makes them different.

Obviously. But also, sometimes, people think that consuming steak this way is what they want and indeed the best way to do steak for everyone but can’t express how it’s in any way better than other ways of consuming steak or even any criteria for “good steak”. They just uncritically connect “yum” in the moment with “therefore best for me and everyone else”.

There are opinions—“I like flying; I like vegan steak”—and then there are claims: “flying is bad for the game”; “vegan steak is healthier than real steak”. Opinions have no value. Claims can be tested, and only one of a pair of opposing claims can be true.

My claim is that flying is the single worst decision ever made in WoW development. There are lots of other bad decisions—invalidating old content as you go, removing talent trees and RP features like hunter pet moods and shaman totems, auto-LFG—but flying is the absolute worst. And I’m prepared to defend that claim.

In order to defend it we need to articulate criteria for “good” and “bad” decisions. In that context:

- Good decisions are decisions which enhance aspects of the game core to its value proposition. Bad decisions degrade it’s core value proposition.

The core proposition of WoW was a large, coherent, persistent world which you move around and explore. Flying degrades and trivialises that experience by reducing the world to a space you move across in straight lines without interacting. Therefore, it erodes WoW’s core proposition and is a Bad Design Decision.

My best understanding of the pro-flying position is that it makes moving around the world faster, easier and less of a barrier. I understand that appeals to a certain kind of player, but (also taking that to its logical conclusion) that kind of player would be best satisfied by teleporting instantly to any location they want. That is to say, by removing an entire section of WoW’s core value proposition. Players who want to play a game minus its core offering are players who don’t want to play that game, and their opinions on the game aren’t worth anything.

If someone can convincingly show me that in fact flying improves the fundamental offering of WoW: a large, persistent, coherent world you can traverse, experience and immerse yourself in then I’m happy to change my view. I have never been convinced of that.

I suggest anyone wanting to do so would need to define “immerse” and “coherent” as a start.

[Super Kami Dende]

"Everyone Has An Opinion About Warcraft"

Everyone has an opinion on everything ever.

[Evolixe]

You're literally the next reply, the thread barely got started. You're now on the right track, which I can only encourage. When you replied with that first post though all you did was make a complete fool out of yourself. The other guy made a fool out of himself too, yes. But at least it wasn't in reply, which does make it worse because that reply is adding insult to injury, quite literally.

As far as the matter of flying goes, I'm rather indifferent about it. I don't think flying makes the game much better or worse, just more convienient to traverse.
If blizzard and/or wow's players want others to not spend as much time in the air as they do, blizzard just needs to make better content on the ground. I think it's just that simple.

[Darsyek]

Offering an opinion means formulating it and expressing it in a genuine and defendable way. When you mock someone with the reversal of their own opinion, it feels less like an opinion and more like Ad Hominem.

Ah, the good old "ad hominem" from someone that doesn't understand what ad hominem actually means. Ad hominem means that you're not arguing against a point, you're arguing against the person that made the point. As an example, say the first reply was "flying is bad and removing it would make the game better." and the second reply is, "Your name is stupid, your opinion is invalid." That is ad hominem. You're attacking a trait of the person presenting an opinion rather than the opinion itself. Biomega mocking the first reply by reversing it is in no way arguing against the person expressing their opinion but is entirely about the opinion itself, quite literally the opposite of what ad hominem actually means.

[Evolixe]

Ah, the good old "ad hominem" from someone that doesn't understand what ad hominem actually means. Ad hominem means that you're not arguing against a point, you're arguing against the person that made the point. As an example, say the first reply was "flying is bad and removing it would make the game better." and the second reply is, "Your name is stupid, your opinion is invalid." That is ad hominem. You're attacking a trait of the person presenting an opinion rather than the opinion itself. Biomega mocking the first reply by reversing it is in no way arguing against the person expressing their opinion but is entirely about the opinion itself, quite literally the opposite of what ad hominem actually means.

He didn't say it was an Ad Hominem argument. He said it feels like one. Big difference.
I can relate since it wasn't really much of an argument at all but rather just a mockery of what it was responding to.