Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7100309" data-attributes="member: 20323">You were asking about is this just needless hemming and hawing about naming conventions? And my response was clarifying that no, it's actually about something deeper; the &quot;empty calorie&quot; name a symptom of a larger issue.Also, I don't understand your defensive language. I'm not attacking you or anyone. And nowhere have I mentioned one-true-wayism that you're eluding to. On the contrary, if you look at my Warrior homebrew design I've mentioned several times in this thread it's an attempt to make a fighter class that can accommodate every and all play styles.As for there being no point to discussing what you like... Actually, I think it's great to share different conceptions and listen to what other people want, and in this case want out of the fighter class. For me, personally, I learn from that sharing – I learned from&nbsp;&nbsp; [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] about an interesting direction to take the fighter, I learned from&nbsp;&nbsp; [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] how the Champion might be re-concepted/re-designed, and I even gained clarity around some of the fighter isn't powerful enough arguments that&nbsp; [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION] made even though I disagree with many of them. And I also am idealistic enough to think that a fighter class could be designed to accommodate even more than the 60% of playstyles it already does – maybe that's why I pay so much attention to what others are reporting about their play experiences with fighters.I really wish we could discuss the topic like adults, and leave the hyperbole and emotion out of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 7100309, member: 20323"] You were asking about [I]is this just needless hemming and hawing about naming conventions?[/I] And my response was clarifying that no, it's actually about something deeper; the "empty calorie" name a symptom of a larger issue. Also, I don't understand your defensive language. I'm not attacking you or anyone. And nowhere have I mentioned one-true-wayism that you're eluding to. On the contrary, if you look at my Warrior homebrew design I've mentioned several times in this thread it's an attempt to make a fighter class that can accommodate every and all play styles. As for [I]there being no point to discussing what you like[/I]... Actually, I think it's great to share different conceptions and listen to what other people want, and in this case want out of the fighter class. For me, personally, I learn from that sharing – I learned from [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] about an interesting direction to take the fighter, I learned from [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] how the Champion might be re-concepted/re-designed, and I even gained clarity around some of the [I]fighter isn't powerful enough[/I] arguments that [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION] made even though I disagree with many of them. And I also am idealistic enough to think that a fighter class could be designed to accommodate even more than the 60% of playstyles it already does – maybe that's why I pay so much attention to what others are reporting about their play experiences with fighters. I really wish we could discuss the topic like adults, and leave the hyperbole and emotion out of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification