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.
It was your example, not mine. :-/
Actualy, when i think about it ...
Asking (politely) people to not bring something i dont like, is kinda self-moderation example ...
Demanding destruction and prohibiton of any sugar-containing food in whole nation, where he lives, seem like acurate parabole to change the rules. O_o
How could you possible conclude that he was frustrate because of his decision?
Was i suppose to understand your sentence: "
Do you think he was ok with that? He wasn't!" as "He was actualy ok with that"? O_o
I presumed otherwise. O_o
-The "hitting the wall" analogy, to me, made no sense at all. ... But, who would be tempted to hit his head on the wall?
EXACTLY!
That is the point ... you are not tempted, there is no positive outcome for you, so you dont do it ... right?
So how is that possible, that in game, where you are not tempted to do something (since you hate it), and it have no positive outcome for you (again, since you hate it) ... why do you do that?
-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.
We both (i hope) should know by now that is impossible to ballance game around two entirely different rule settings ... allowing wizards to learn all spells, allowing everyone to cast from scroll, allowing people to change their spells whenever they want, allowing people to hide with bonus action ... those changes are too big, even separately, not even mention together ... to create some "toggle". :-/
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.
Rogue is not ninja ...
Even shadow monk is closer to that ... yet you would make them "less stealthy" than rogue, bcs for some unknown reason you simply decided and stated that rogues are the stealthiest beings in the universe. :-/
I could say the same to you ... my Ranger passed years practicing camouflaging and stealthin in wild ... while your Rogue was just bumping to people and pickpocketing them.
It just dont make sence to simply asume someones whole backstory, based on "he is rogue". :-/
I honestly hope that Larian will be more open minded in this. -_-
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.
Obviously ...
Except you are determining who is who by class ... i determine that by their backstories.
[Guess what!? this basically why classes exist on RPGs]
Funny ... have you ever heared about archetypes?
That is something that every class contains, so players can see wich DIFFERENT characters can be played with that class (and yes, even those are just examples ... bcs the final word allways have only fantasy of its user).
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.
That is very nice of them ... but have nothing to do with our case. :-/
We are not talking here about Larian redistribuing specific amount of stuff ... we are talking here about allowing one kid to eat that apple right now ... but restrict every single of the others to adhere strict process of preparation, serving and consumption.
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.
Then your first conclusion in this post was the only right one ... you really dont udnerstand. :-/
Developers should obviously balance the game ...
But developers should balance the game as THEY see fit ... and certainly should not to fulfill every whim players come with. Especialy in cases when their changes would ruin game for others, just bcs they "cant resist the temptation". -_-
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.
Company would say that they wont change a feature, bcs feature is working as intended and they are satisfied with its function ... and since you like guesing so much ... gues what?
That is happening all the time.
