Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6258540" data-attributes="member: 2525">No, that's not what you said, and if it's what you meant you chose a poor way to communicate it.&nbsp; What you said was, Removing striking out, or strikes in general, is not the equivalent of adding a few things which are not strikes to the game.&nbsp; Adding a few non-strike parts is not the equivalent of removing all the unfun parts.&nbsp; And adding a few non-strike parts does not make the entire game &quot;unfun&quot;.&nbsp; All of your equivalencies were false.And I know you're trying to justify it as a &quot;design philosophy&quot; but that's even more a canard as you know quite well that's not the overall design philosophy and we're talking about a very tiny subset design element in a much larger design philosophy that includes an overwhelming majority of ordinary misses (strikes) in the game.For example, to run with your baseball analogy (though I detest argument by analogy for these sorts of scenarios) adding foul shots that don't count as a final strike (though previously they did) was an addition to the baseball rules which did not take away from the fact that the game involves strikes, and yet it was a non-strike addition to the game.&nbsp; It didn't make baseball in general unfun, nor did it serve to replace the overall design philosophy for baseball with strikes and runs.&nbsp; But some of the reasons for that rule are similar to the reasons for the damage-on-a-miss, in that it was more fun to continue the batting if the batter had just managed to hit the ball on what would have been a strike out, despite the fact his &quot;hit&quot; missed the fair part of the field.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 6258540, member: 2525"] No, that's not what you said, and if it's what you meant you chose a poor way to communicate it. What you said was, Removing striking out, or strikes in general, is not the equivalent of adding a few things which are not strikes to the game. Adding a few non-strike parts is not the equivalent of removing all the unfun parts. And adding a few non-strike parts does not make the entire game "unfun". All of your equivalencies were false. And I know you're trying to justify it as a "design philosophy" but that's even more a canard as you know quite well that's not the overall design philosophy and we're talking about a very tiny subset design element in a much larger design philosophy that includes an overwhelming majority of ordinary misses (strikes) in the game. For example, to run with your baseball analogy (though I detest argument by analogy for these sorts of scenarios) adding foul shots that don't count as a final strike (though previously they did) was an addition to the baseball rules which did not take away from the fact that the game involves strikes, and yet it was a non-strike addition to the game. It didn't make baseball in general unfun, nor did it serve to replace the overall design philosophy for baseball with strikes and runs. But some of the reasons for that rule are similar to the reasons for the damage-on-a-miss, in that it was more fun to continue the batting if the batter had just managed to hit the ball on what would have been a strike out, despite the fact his "hit" missed the fair part of the field. [/QUOTE]

Verification