@Ragnarok, I will give you an answer in respect of the time you took to give yours. Because... Well, I can't find the logic you used to get to most of you conclusion, so it's hard to argument against arguments you can't understand.
Anyway:
-Still on the chocolate analogy: Yeah, i agree it's the person fault since he eat it. But if he know he would probably doing eventually, asking his folks is the correct thing to do. And if his folks, even knowing that, left a chocolate bar on his bedroom... they sure don't care for him.
-About the WT3(It's one of the biggest cRPG released up2date). I am not saying the name straight because it wouldn't be on a good tone, since we are on other company forum.
How could you possible conclude that he was frustrate because of his decision? I am pretty sure he would do that again, since the other option was way worse.
-The "hitting the wall" analogy, to me, made no sense at all. I mean, yeah, I diabetic would indeed have the temptation to eat the chocolate, even if he know he should't, on the same note a guy would be tempted to procrastinate even knowing he shouldn't and so on. But, who would be tempted to hit his head on the wall?
-Somewhere on the topic you got the conclusion that I was scratching the rules I don't like, and again, I don't see how you can logically got to that conclusion since I clearly position myself ad an adept to the ToggleOnOff Feature as way to bring people the experience they like.
-Now the worse parte of all:
But removing it would "hurt" the other classes aswell ...
If i create dexterity based, light armor wearing Fighter ... why should i be less stealthy then a "rogue" ?
If i create dexterity based, light armor wearing Ranger ... why shouls i be less stealthy then a "rogue" ?
etc.
Here I can only think you are really pushing... You should be less stealth because you are not a rogue. Because you have passed you years studding magic, or in communion with nature, or even trainning to use all weapons on the word with mastery.
It should be obvious that two person with the same physical capacity wouldn't have the same results on a sport that one play hours everyday and the other don't. [Guess what!? this basically why classes exist on RPGs]
And NO, you wouldn't be hurting the other classes aswell. For instance: The government gave two children 3 apples for each and zero for another kid. If/when they got to the conclusion that this was a poor decision and they are hurting the third kid, and that from now on they will give 2 apples for each, they are NOT hurting the first two, they are just making it fair.
FINALLY
I think everything can be resumed by the fact that you believe on something that orbit around the idea that: "Developer shouldn't have to balance the game" but the player. Sorry to break it to you, but it's not the players obligation.
Maybe one day you will work on developing games too and you'll understand that, and u'll understand that the closer you can bring your game to balance the more people will enjoy it.
That is not that self moderation is completely unnecessary, but it should be minimum, and btw, if a company EVER says to it's players that they won't change a feature because they need to learn/use self moderation... Well, let's say they wouldn't been doing games for long.
