2012-01-19, 05:22 PM
Come to think of it, just as an example...
>AMs have no party skills
Something like that, can it really be sorted as a pro or a con at all? Bar the fact that Medi exists and therefore an Archmage *does* have a party skill albeit a fairly useless one in the vast majority of actual party scenarios, it seems like a general statement that can't really be shifted either way. Not like having no useful party skills was ever considered a "con" of a Corsair or a Hero (Magic Crash isn't a party skill) since they've always had the damage to back it up and now Archmages have that too. Maybe scrapping the whole "Pro/Con" framework entirely and instead focusing on general descriptions of only the immediate facts would be a better way around it since in effect all a "pro"/"con" is is a general statement with whatever positive/negative connotations the one who labelled it as such attached to it, which can ultimately be disagreed with. In effect what I'm suggesting is that for every class whip up a couple of unbiased paragraphs that state something like "This is what class A can and can't do, this is how it interacts with the game environment/other players, this is how it compares to other classes in random criteria, we'll let you decide whether any of this is a good thing or not".
Using unbiased descriptions over a "pro"/"con" list would mean that grey areas like "no party skills", "typically cheaper equips" and "repetitive gameplay" would be easily placed while outright opinions like " would still be ignored. Would also mean that the reader decides what is a pro or a con of the class for themselves rather than having the thread basically decide for them.
>AMs have no party skills
Something like that, can it really be sorted as a pro or a con at all? Bar the fact that Medi exists and therefore an Archmage *does* have a party skill albeit a fairly useless one in the vast majority of actual party scenarios, it seems like a general statement that can't really be shifted either way. Not like having no useful party skills was ever considered a "con" of a Corsair or a Hero (Magic Crash isn't a party skill) since they've always had the damage to back it up and now Archmages have that too. Maybe scrapping the whole "Pro/Con" framework entirely and instead focusing on general descriptions of only the immediate facts would be a better way around it since in effect all a "pro"/"con" is is a general statement with whatever positive/negative connotations the one who labelled it as such attached to it, which can ultimately be disagreed with. In effect what I'm suggesting is that for every class whip up a couple of unbiased paragraphs that state something like "This is what class A can and can't do, this is how it interacts with the game environment/other players, this is how it compares to other classes in random criteria, we'll let you decide whether any of this is a good thing or not".
Using unbiased descriptions over a "pro"/"con" list would mean that grey areas like "no party skills", "typically cheaper equips" and "repetitive gameplay" would be easily placed while outright opinions like " would still be ignored. Would also mean that the reader decides what is a pro or a con of the class for themselves rather than having the thread basically decide for them.