Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9162418" data-attributes="member: 6795602">IMO.&nbsp; There is - it's just not applicable to 100% of cases.&nbsp; There are many potential classes we could objectively say were bad.&nbsp; The ones in the game currently are mostly close enough that I don't think we can say definitively for levels 1-20 class A in all it's variations is better than class B in all it's.&nbsp; This is where it gets alot more nuanced.&nbsp; There is an argument being put forth that's essentially '(1) fighters are popular but it's in spite of their poor design, likely because some combination of conceptual space they represent being popular and the low mental load required to play one sufficiently well.&nbsp; So they are popular but poorly designed because of xyz'.Citing their popularity as evidence of their good design is just talking past almost everyone making some form of the above argument.Agreed.&nbsp; I think on it's face popularity should initially be treated as evidence of good design.&nbsp; For example, if someone told me Mario was badly designed and I said but it's super popular that might be enough to change their mind - perhaps they reevaluated what they thought was good design.&nbsp; But when they go further and say it's badly designed because xyz and popular for other reasons then citing it's popularity is no longer persuasive.&nbsp;&nbsp; At that point citing popularity repeatedly isn't doing anything.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 9162418, member: 6795602"] IMO. There is - it's just not applicable to 100% of cases. There are many potential classes we could objectively say were bad. The ones in the game currently are mostly close enough that I don't think we can say definitively for levels 1-20 class A in all it's variations is better than class B in all it's. This is where it gets alot more nuanced. There is an argument being put forth that's essentially '(1) fighters are popular but it's in spite of their poor design, likely because some combination of conceptual space they represent being popular and the low mental load required to play one sufficiently well. So they are popular but poorly designed because of xyz'. Citing their popularity as evidence of their good design is just talking past almost everyone making some form of the above argument. Agreed. I think on it's face popularity should initially be treated as evidence of good design. For example, if someone told me Mario was badly designed and I said but it's super popular that might be enough to change their mind - perhaps they reevaluated what they thought was good design. But when they go further and say it's badly designed because xyz and popular for other reasons then citing it's popularity is no longer persuasive. At that point citing popularity repeatedly isn't doing anything. [/QUOTE]

Verification