Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DinoInDisguise" data-source="post: 9441905" data-attributes="member: 7045806">Okay. We've had this discussion before. So I don't want to get into it too deep.Here is the quote, you were referring to by Chaosmancer:In this hypothetical, there are no unchanged subclasses. The entire system was, as per the hypothetical, inflated by 10.Remember that the definition of power creep requires a change in viability to an unchanged unit. We discussed this recently, we discussed how you couldn't really measure that.Heres the definition of power creep word for word;"The situation where successive updates or expansions to a game introduce more powerful units or abilities, leaving the older ones underpowered."Context is important here. The phrase "introduce more powerful units or abilities" excludes mere "buffs" to the existing. And the phrase "leaving the old ones underpowered" means that unchanged aspects must have a change in power level so as to "lack power" relative to the new stuff, per the definition of underpowered.In the context of Chaosmancer's hypothetical, power creep isn't possible. The hypothetical fails multiple aspects of the definition.Now, in the thread as a whole, people claim that a raise in average power constitutes power creep. That only works IF the relative viability of an unchanged aspect is negatively affected; it "becomes underpowered." And that change negatively impacts the relative power of an unchanged "unit." Under no reading is "higher average power level" sufficient by itself.I hope this clarifies things for you.Source: <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/power_creep" target="_blank">power creep - Wiktionary, the free dictionary</a></blockquote>

Verification