Shouldn't all spells be per combat encounter? Not per rest?

[perilisk]

 

I dont know it still seems magic is all over the place in PoE. They should have just got rid of the wizard books and gave access to all spells. Their spells per rest doesn't change. So why add an extra mechanic in the game that Druids and Priests don't have? It just seems odd and out of place.

the developers clear wanted unique gameplay for different classes.  give chanters different themed spells from wizards is not unique gameplay.  cipher focus building is intended to play different from other casters.  wizards got their grimoires, which adds different tactical concerns. if druid wildshape actual were useful beyond the early stages o' the game, that would also be creating a uniqueness to druidic play.  what is out-o'-place, if anything, is that the casting mechanics for priests, druids and wizards is a bit too similar, but that is what the community wanted.  for the familiar classes with ie analogues, the fan base insisted/inisits on making the poe versions play more like the ie/d&d versions.  can't have a poe paladin that is relative weak on offense 'cause that ain't what bg2 did. weren't any different for the fighter when the beta were initial released.  many beta testers wanted to know why the fighter couldn't dps better.... it were wrong that a poe fighter couldn't do damage and absorb damage with equal faculty, in spite o' the fact that many such complaints were coming from folks who had actual applauded the direction o' fighters announced in this thread... with the notable and almost singular exception o' karkarov.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66380-update-81-the-front-line-fighters-and-barbarians/?hl=front-liners

 

ciphers and chanters and wizards, oh my.

 

is all 'posed to play different.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Not disagreeing, exactly, but what benefit do wizards get for this restriction? Right now, wizard is "druid/priest, but with limited spell selection". I don't know that taking another class and then crippling it is exactly what people mean by "variety".

 

And it's hard to even justify lorewise why Druid wouldn't just be another priest, given that the most druidy in-game culture also is very huge on the gods. You could easily roll the Druid and Priest spells into one superset, then parcel a different subset out for each deity, along with a key power. Galawain followers could get Spiritshape, Magran could get a beefed up Interdiction, others could get Holy Radiance (though it seems more like an Eothas thing), and you could add some new ones as needed. Bah.

[nipsen]

^haha. Yeah, some have really short memories... 

 

Poor poor nipsen. Trying so hard to launch a pithy zinger that you cant even get the basics right. But once more for the cheap seat, I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks of the game mechanics. Im only worried about what I think of the game mechanics(...)

 

There's no reason to doubt you're very fond of stating your opinions. I'm pointing out that you don't seem willing to try to understand any of the typical GM concerns when playing an rpg. And don't see the obvious implications your suggestions have for the game's design. You're also flatly dismissing anything that doesn't agree with your always unexplained point of view.

 

So I can deduce that your "basics" are different from the basics a game-master would think of when conducting a role-playing game. But other than that, we can only guess.

 

That you think this is conductive for any debate about game-mechanics would be fairly comical, if it wasn't for how you're a moderator on the board, and like some of the other mods and community folks, seem delighted to often and at the most idiotic moments, set the standard as low as possible. Which is a shame, since we initially had a lot of people here with different points of views, ability to explain them well, and who were willing to spend time discussing their views with the devs.

 

So for example when Josh said they're going away from taking any community feedback in. After Obsidian responded very directly to the initial beta feedback. And right after, as I said would happen at the time, continued to get negative feedback, even from the specific people who got exactly what they requested. Then that's not "pithy" - it's a description of how the community team as a whole is worse than incompetent.

 

I really shouldn't need to point out either that it's not my design suggestions that are being criticized on the board now that the final game is out. What I said was that the suggestions made on a forum should not be used to make changes to the existing design, and that the feedback should be requested for specific and limited areas of the game-mechanics. While you, and others on the community team, have argued from the start that sweeping forum-opinion about what "doesn't work" and "it's broken" should be taken as more valuable than anything Josh could come up with.

 

So be my guest, G1fted - go ahead and explain how helpful it is to have a community team with that attitude on your back.

[Gromnir]

 

 

I dont know it still seems magic is all over the place in PoE. They should have just got rid of the wizard books and gave access to all spells. Their spells per rest doesn't change. So why add an extra mechanic in the game that Druids and Priests don't have? It just seems odd and out of place.

the developers clear wanted unique gameplay for different classes.  give chanters different themed spells from wizards is not unique gameplay.  cipher focus building is intended to play different from other casters.  wizards got their grimoires, which adds different tactical concerns. if druid wildshape actual were useful beyond the early stages o' the game, that would also be creating a uniqueness to druidic play.  what is out-o'-place, if anything, is that the casting mechanics for priests, druids and wizards is a bit too similar, but that is what the community wanted.  for the familiar classes with ie analogues, the fan base insisted/inisits on making the poe versions play more like the ie/d&d versions.  can't have a poe paladin that is relative weak on offense 'cause that ain't what bg2 did. weren't any different for the fighter when the beta were initial released.  many beta testers wanted to know why the fighter couldn't dps better.... it were wrong that a poe fighter couldn't do damage and absorb damage with equal faculty, in spite o' the fact that many such complaints were coming from folks who had actual applauded the direction o' fighters announced in this thread... with the notable and almost singular exception o' karkarov.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66380-update-81-the-front-line-fighters-and-barbarians/?hl=front-liners

 

ciphers and chanters and wizards, oh my.

 

is all 'posed to play different.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Not disagreeing, exactly, but what benefit do wizards get for this restriction? Right now, wizard is "druid/priest, but with limited spell selection". I don't know that taking another class and then crippling it is exactly what people mean by "variety".

 

And it's hard to even justify lorewise why Druid wouldn't just be another priest, given that the most druidy in-game culture also is very huge on the gods. You could easily roll the Druid and Priest spells into one superset, then parcel a different subset out for each deity, along with a key power. Galawain followers could get Spiritshape, Magran could get a beefed up Interdiction, others could get Holy Radiance (though it seems more like an Eothas thing), and you could add some new ones as needed. Bah.

 

well, as noted, the spirit shape is 'posed to be far more integral to the gameplay o' the druid.  the shape is what makes druids unique, but kinda fails to do.  were precise our point that mechanically the druid, priest and wizard play far too similar, but that is what backers actual wanted.  

 

given that the poe wizard is similar to the ie/d&d mage, it should be no surprise that the poe wizard is similarly defined by his spell selection.  we got considerable use outa boosting aloth's sceptre talent's, but what makes a wizard worth keeping in the party is his spell selection-- a few specific spells as a matter o' fact.  what does the wizard get for the grimoire limitation?  answer: the most diverse spell catalog. alternatively, you could look at it reversed.  given that the poe wizard has such a diverse spell catalog, the grimoire functions as a useful limit to level the playing field with other caster classes.  

 

personal opinion:  priests don't genuine need beefed-up anything.  perhaps they could use more deity-specific stuff, but beef is not what would make a priest more fun to play.  priests already get the seal spell advantages, deity weapon focus talents and a few o' the more powerful spells in the game.  petrify were absent from the priest repertoire and that gave other casters a major advantage when comparing and contrasting priests v. everything else, but petrify has been nerfed in 1.05.    

 

regardless, as we were never in favor o' maintaining the trappings o' d&d/ie in poe, and as we specific were opposed to vancian or per rest spells, coming up with reasons to support the current wizard/priest/druid mechanics is difficult for us.  we don't like per rest spells.  however, Gromnir were a distinct minority in fighting 'gainst the current mechanic.  we got what the backers, as a whole, asked for.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[scrotiemcb]

I dont know it still seems magic is all over the place in PoE. They should have just got rid of the wizard books and gave access to all spells. Their spells per rest doesn't change. So why add an extra mechanic in the game that Druids and Priests don't have? It just seems odd and out of place.

Emphasis mine.

 

The answer is simple: variety. Different classes should feel different; otherwise, why have different classes?

 

Balance is supposed to be the handmaiden of variety. First, you make two things wildly different, then you balance them such that both are viable. The end result is two (or more) wildly different but (roughly) equally viable alternatives.

 

But I feel all too often people begin to believe that sameness is the means to balance, as if balance is some form of end-in-itself. Thus, in the name of balance, you have players crusading against variety and fun.

 

Wizards shouldn't lose the books. They need the books; it is what makes them wizards. If you ask me, wizards need 3 things:

1. Prepared, rather than spontaneous, spells using the Grimoire as an interface. That's right, even more spellcasting restrictions.

2. Powerful magic. Wizards are the animancers of the setting and you should feel that power in a Wizard's spells.

3. Metamagic. Again, the Grimoire could be an interface for this.

 

Oh, and while we're at it, Druid shouldn't get to know its whole spell list, either. They should get spontaneous casting (to be different than Wizards) but have a limited number of spells known (to be different from Priests).

 

In general, it shouldn't be "hey, let's have the same systems for everybody." In fact, the opposite: let us have each class use radically different systems than the others.

Edited May 2, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[superluccix]

I definitely have to agree that all spells should be per encounter and none be per rested.

 

Why in the world should I have to go into a fight automatically gimped just because I tried to win to the best degree possible during my previous fight? 

 

Also, this thing about it being "Resource management". Please. When I think of Resource Management, I think of things like limited item uses, like wands, potions, etc, and then things like limited spell total, like what PoE and BG have. Going into the next fight gimped because of per rest spells is a ****ty way to *manage resources*, when my own class cant be used to its full potential because of arbitrary restrictions.

 

Also, the argument of "Well if these abilities were per encounter instead of per rest, then people would just endlessly spam the best attacks thereby making the encounters trivial".  This is not an argument for spells being per rest, this is an argument for spells being nerfed or redesigned, its an argument for enemy encounters to be harder so that they cant be trivialized by go to spells. 

 

Did I save scum while playing BG 1? Yes. Why? Because I wanted to be able to test my maximum vs my opponents maximum. Trying to make every single fight *hard* by having your party automatically weaker then normal, not just in health, but in ability to use spells, isnt the way to go about it.

 

Camping supplies should be unlimited. You want to increase the cost to match the availability? Fine. Just nothing ridiculous.

 

Also dont want to hear anything about *muh immersion* in a game with an unlimited stash

 

All that a "spell per rest"  does is add tedium. Tedium should always be something you want to reduce. 

 

Also, I like the idea that resting after every battle is somehow an exploit. Lol. The idea that I want to face my opponent on somewhat equal footing is somehow an exploit. Just lol.

Edited May 2, 2015 by superluccix

[Tigranes]

Why should wands have limited charges? Shouldn't all wands have per encounter charges too? Going into the next fight gimped because you ran out of wand charges is an arbitrary restriction. If it just makes people spam wand of fireball al day, well, it's an argument for redesigning wands so they aren't so powerful. The way you're arguing it, we could just make everything unlimited.

 

You're coming in with your totally arbitrary idea of what is allowed to be limited and what is not, so of course when reality does not agree with you you're going to think it's stupid and annoying. 

[superluccix]

Why should wands have limited charges? Shouldn't all wands have per encounter charges too? Going into the next fight gimped because you ran out of wand charges is an arbitrary restriction. If it just makes people spam wand of fireball al day, well, it's an argument for redesigning wands so they aren't so powerful. The way you're arguing it, we could just make everything unlimited.

 

You're coming in with your totally arbitrary idea of what is allowed to be limited and what is not, so of course when reality does not agree with you you're going to think it's stupid and annoying. 

 

Right, because having an unlimited supply of an item you have to find during the game to then permanently replace a classes own spells/abilities is totally the same thing and a good fun mechanic.

 

Reach farther next time.

 

Also, I can reflect your last sentence back at you. Try harder

Edited May 2, 2015 by superluccix

[scrotiemcb]

Also, this thing about it being "Resource management". Please. When I think of Resource Management, I think of things like limited item uses, like wands, potions, etc, and then things like limited spell total, like what PoE and BG have. Going into the next fight gimped because of per rest spells is a ****ty way to *manage resources*, when my own class cant be used to its full potential because of arbitrary restrictions.

 

Also, the argument of "Well if these abilities were per encounter instead of per rest, then people would just endlessly spam the best attacks thereby making the encounters trivial". This is not an argument for spells being per rest, this is an argument for spells being nerfed or redesigned, its an argument for enemy encounters to be harder so that they cant be trivialized by go to spells...

 

Camping supplies should be unlimited. You want to increase the cost to match the availability? Fine. Just nothing ridiculous...

 

All that a "spell per rest" does is add tedium. Tedium should always be something you want to reduce.

 

Also, I like the idea that resting after every battle is somehow an exploit. Lol. The idea that I want to face my opponent on somewhat equal footing is somehow an exploit. Just lol.

I tentatively disagree.

 

First off, there is nothing wrong with the design of a class which is meant to be used more like a renewable source of wands and potions, rather than expend all resources every fight. You might not enjoy that playstyle, but that's why there are other classes which can give their all every fight. So while I could get behind an argument that SOME classes should not rely on per-rest abilities, I cannot agree that ALL classes shouldn't.

 

Per-rest abilities should be powerful. They should be things you cannot do every single fight. The idea of nerfing Wizard spells while simultaneously making them per-encounter would just make every class feel boringly similar.

 

However, it should be self-evident that the very core of a per-rest system is the rest system. How the game handles resting is going to have a huge impact on classes using the "living wand" concept.

 

And in a way, it is just tedium. But that is its CURRENT state, not its only possible configuration. As it stands now, per-rest is balanced more against a tedium cost imposed on the player than it is around actual resource management (unless you consider tedium a resource). If you need to rest you just camp, without any risk of getting surprised in your sleep. If you run out of camping supplies you just retreat back to an inn, safe in the knowledge that the retreat path is safe.

 

The current rest system is, indeed, less rational than no rest system at all. You can make any per-rest into a per-encounter if you're willing to sit through enough monotony.

 

But I don't believe the answer is to just cut the per-rest mechanic completely. I think the answer is to put hard or soft prohibitions on retreats so the tedium isn't an option anymore, allowing per-rest abilities to be rebalanced along a per-dungeon concept.

 

Why? Variety. Nothing more or less than having different classes feel very different from each other... yet, hopefully, roughly equal in effectiveness.

 

But, hey, if Obsidian ever comes out saying they will never, ever prevent players from abusing the rest system, then suddenly you're right, and per-rest classes may as well be removed from the game.

Edited May 2, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[Jimmysdabestcop]

I feel if they really wanted to make everything per encounter they could. Of course every spell/ability would have to be rebalanced. Probably means less area, less duration, less damage. Or more HP/Endurance for enemies. Something along those lines.

 

of course just making everything per encounter with out rebalance would mess everything up.

[scrotiemcb]

In my previous post I originally wrote "...the per-rest abilities may as well be removed..." This was understating things. If you make everything per-encounter there isn't enough design space remaining to have 11 classes which feel district and interesting. Fixing rest is vital to keeping the per-rest CLASSES in the game in a meaningful way; if it never gets fixed, I'd say caster classes should just be outright axed, not have their abilities rebalanced.

Edited May 2, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[superluccix]

I may have misinterpreted you, but Im not following on how redesigning the current spells/abilities that are *per rest* so that they arent OP if made *per encounter* therefore makes all classes feel the same. 

 

I mean I didnt think the classes felt the same in BG1 even though I could rest/save scum after every fight, thereby using their abilities again. And if certain spells in BG1 were too OP because they could be spammed over and over, as long as you filled your spell slots with it, I still dont see how it makes the rest mechanic broken, and not just the spells being too OP, or the enemies being too weak.

 

 

But then again, Im not sure if my BG1 comparison is valid to begin with, since Im sure the spells we could cast in that game could be considered OP, thereby not being nerfed to see if the classes played the same or not. So I guess I cant really use this as an example? Dont know.

 

And also, since the combat mechanics of both games does differ greatly, due to things like engagement, pre buffing, health, no death knockouts, Im not sure if this adds even more reason why my comparison doesnt work. Hmmm

Edited May 2, 2015 by superluccix

[nipsen]

 

All that a "spell per rest"  does is add tedium. Tedium should always be something you want to reduce. 

 

Also, I like the idea that resting after every battle is somehow an exploit. Lol. The idea that I want to face my opponent on somewhat equal footing is somehow an exploit. Just lol.

Well, it is easy to mistake the game's encounters for being balanced against an "optimal" and well-equipped party Specially if you don't play the game in a way that exploits the AI and the mechanics in general.

 

But I'm afraid that what we're seeing is just a very badly set up scaling system (if there even is one) for the mob spawns, that doesn't really fit with the typical party make-ups that aren't min-maxed. And it basically hates you if you rely on the current version of per-rest spells.

 

But I think it's important to realize that adding gradually more difficult encounters in between the normal mobs, on an alternate path, or in the bottom end of the dungeon, etc. That could be a way to avoid scaling for an average, and to always have a player (on any level) find something challenging eventually. And the first draft of PoE basically dared you to go ahead and try clearing the difficult encounters like this, to hunt for new gear, but also because the game in itself begged you to do it: you've created a party make-up like this, you slay the troll and the priest without problems using strategic placement and very few buff-spells or ranged gambles. You know the likely weaknesses of the druids, and you have prepared the right weapons, etc. So can you do it? There's no reward other than maybe some gear - but that's what I spent the most time on. Making the party better, rearranging the gear to get the right damage types to the right characters, figuring out whether to go for damage treshold or to increase dodge, figuring out how to make the engagement system work against the enemy, etc. Hire another henchman to figure out a new build to compensate for a weakness in the current party - the game encouraged you to do that, and rewarded you with more and more interesting fights.

 

Now, we have a completely uninteresting metagame, and it really is reduced to "why is camping supplies the only significant resource in the game". But it could have been done... it was done... differently. There's no such thing as "either we get Baldur's Gate 2+, or we get an action-rpg". And Josh proved that.

 

So it's very sad that an initial knee-jerk reaction from a forum-community (made up of less than a hundredth of a percent of the backers) scuttled that. Because I think that system would have been very satisfying to play for people who.. you know.. backed PoE rather than spam 100s of hours into D3 and WoW type games, and then presumably wanted something else.

 

we got what the backers, as a whole, asked for.

 

Um.. I suppose it's more that we got a sort of random distribution for several isolated points between extreme opposite opinions, on an internet forum. And then some kid drew a crayon through the middle of all the points, grinned because it looked so orderly and correct, and that was what they ended up with.

[Gfted1]

There's no reason to doubt you're very fond of stating your opinions. I'm pointing out that you don't seem willing to try to understand any of the typical GM concerns when playing an rpg. And don't see the obvious implications your suggestions have for the game's design. You're also flatly dismissing anything that doesn't agree with your always unexplained point of view.

 

So I can deduce that your "basics" are different from the basics a game-master would think of when conducting a role-playing game. But other than that, we can only guess.

 

That you think this is conductive for any debate about game-mechanics would be fairly comical, if it wasn't for how you're a moderator on the board, and like some of the other mods and community folks, seem delighted to often and at the most idiotic moments, set the standard as low as possible. Which is a shame, since we initially had a lot of people here with different points of views, ability to explain them well, and who were willing to spend time discussing their views with the devs.

 

So for example when Josh said they're going away from taking any community feedback in. After Obsidian responded very directly to the initial beta feedback. And right after, as I said would happen at the time, continued to get negative feedback, even from the specific people who got exactly what they requested. Then that's not "pithy" - it's a description of how the community team as a whole is worse than incompetent.

 

I really shouldn't need to point out either that it's not my design suggestions that are being criticized on the board now that the final game is out. What I said was that the suggestions made on a forum should not be used to make changes to the existing design, and that the feedback should be requested for specific and limited areas of the game-mechanics. While you, and others on the community team, have argued from the start that sweeping forum-opinion about what "doesn't work" and "it's broken" should be taken as more valuable than anything Josh could come up with.

 

So be my guest, G1fted - go ahead and explain how helpful it is to have a community team with that attitude on your back.

Ah, if only we "got" your genius.

 

Opinions vary and negative criticism happens during betas. Deal with it. Or don't.

[nipsen]

So how does that agnostic attitude mesh with how the community team as a whole prefers short categorical statements that are easy to type down?

 

I mean, you understand that I'm coming to this with a little bit of background when it comes to presenting condensed "product feedback" from focus groups? And that when I'm saying it's not a good idea to interpret opinions without context, that I'm not saying this to be tricky, underhanded, or difficult?

[Gfted1]

What?

[scrotiemcb]

He is trying to say that what people ask for is rarely what they want. He has lots of psychological and sociological evidence, in the form of scientific studies, to back this up. Which means he's right.

 

Might help if we cited some, though. I'll start with Wilson & Schooler 1991.

Edited May 4, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[Gfted1]

And what does that have to do with:

 

 

 

The thing is that people like Gift3d over there would argue that if 9/10 forumers would instinctively recoil at a mechanic, however well argued it was, or how well the intention with the mechanic came through in practice - then this would reflect the opinion of all players of the game, and the mechanic became "objectively bad".

 

I don't care at all about how others play their games, or if Obs created the bestest code ever known to mankind, or nipsen's sad tale of loss and woe. I only care about how I receive a game.  Aside, my psychological and sociological outlook have improved immensely since you've been able to condense the walls-o-whining into easily parsable  chunks.

[scrotiemcb]

I only care about how I receive a game.

An odd opinion for someone in an internet forum. It would seem your presence here implies some degree of care about what others think.

[luzarius]

It should cost 25c for every person to rest at an inn.

 

Party of 5 = 125c

Solo = 25c

 

There has to be some kind of resource allocated to resting.  Resting with NPC's should only be allowed once or something.

 

Resting for free is just way too exploitable, unless it was intended to be used A LOT.  If resting for free was intended to be used as often as you want, then you might as well make all spells per encounter instead of per rest.

 

I find myself resting after every fight or every other 2 fights on POTD, TOI, blind playthrough. 

 

Imagine if all the food at the tavern was free too, it would be overpowered, instead there is a money sink for the benefits of food.

 

Shouldn't there be a money sync for the benefits of resting?

 

Easy = FREE resting

Normal Difficulty = 5c per companion

Hard = 10c per companion

POTD = 25c per companion

 

To make it lore friendly, once Urgeant says a certain something, then the innkeeper starts charging you to rest at the inn.

 

I WISH THIS GAME WAS MODDABLE.

Edited May 4, 2015 by luzarius

[Wbino]

In actuality just for ****s and giggles spells should be tied to Endurance.

[Namutree]

All we really need is a few quests with in-game time limitations, like say, a week to be completed, and a dungeon you can't leave until you complete it (just make sure the player is aware of this before they enter it). 

[nipsen]

And what does that have to do with:

 

 

 

The thing is that people like Gift3d over there would argue that if 9/10 forumers would instinctively recoil at a mechanic, however well argued it was, or how well the intention with the mechanic came through in practice - then this would reflect the opinion of all players of the game, and the mechanic became "objectively bad".

 

I don't care at all about how others play their games, or if Obs created the bestest code ever known to mankind, or nipsen's sad tale of loss and woe. I only care about how I receive a game.  Aside, my psychological and sociological outlook have improved immensely since you've been able to condense the walls-o-whining into easily parsable  chunks.

I suppose you could condense it into that opinions people feel are genuinely their own as well as informed by all kinds of information, often are made within a very narrow context. And that it's easy to believe you're actually making a much more significant choice when the options are narrowed down for you on beforehand, specially when you're not aware of how limited the choice is.

 

While people who make choices in a broader scope often happen to be less decisive, more moderate, and more uncertain.

 

Wall of text follows:

(That study up there is kind of a special case of that, when you have a limited choice on beforehand, and one group is asked to study the details carefully before making a choice. While the other should go with gut-instinct. And you end up with people who are asked to make gut-instinct type choices on average agreeing more with informed expert opinions, as well as being much more bombastic about which choice to make, than the ones who are asked to take their time and think carefully about multiple criteria.

 

So both groups make choices inside the same context. But you can easily be led to believe that the most decisive opinions are actually not just more audacious, but also better informed than the more complicated and moderate decisions. Even though that holds true only within a very narrow context where most of the variables and considerations really are taken out of the equation.

 

When writing policy-papers, for example, you often guard yourself well from suggesting it's all a very complicated problem that you're presenting a very tiny slice of. Instead, people typically describe what they're presenting as being broader than what it is. And you often create an artificial binary choice between extreme positions, for example, and describe criteria that would lead you towards one or the other end of the scale, to make people grow into one or the other. Then you vainly caveat it with suggestions for alternative positions outside the scope of the first two choices, but illustrated in relation to the binary choice context.

 

And the problem (in some people's view, mine for example) you run into afterwards is that the strongest and most loudly stated opinions are formed by people who made a decision early, and who considered the fewest criteria. While the ones who read the entire paper don't know what to think at all. So you end up with a thoughtful and considered group without any strong opinions, at least initially. While the short, compact opinions - that thanks to your angle in the paper now sound informed as well as fall within an acceptable and typical context the discussion revolves around - tend to be not just strong and decisive, and fit with your "expert" opinion on the face of it. But people who make these decisions feel their decisions are more meaningful as well.

 

Or, put in a different way - the stronger and more decisive opinions people have, the less thought they've normally put into them. And you've enabled that by trying to inform them.

 

So you perhaps spend some effort trying to fish for and include the more thoughtful opinions. But, and this has happened to me several times, that effort will often be sabotaged by people who elevate the clear and quick first decisions. Because these opinions are easy to understand and you don't need much debate to decide whatever it was you were discussing afterwards. These people also don't complain - they genuinely feel that their opinions are important and made on a solid foundation. It doesn't need to be done maliciously either, even if that's the case fairly often in marketing (..or politics) -- that you exploit the fact that you can get people to commit very strongly to a predictable opinion. But it's well-known that you get immediate and strong opinions early, and that these opinions will be extremely difficult to change afterwards.

 

That's an unnecessary long and convoluted way of saying that the strongest opinions tend to be the least informed. But it's often useful to be aware of that the first and strongest opinion, even though it sounds considered in all kinds of ways, can be a very flimsy and ill-considered opinion, that only is decisive because very few criteria were actually though about. 

 

So no, I'm not a huge fan of people who come up with very strong opinions and no explanations for them.

 

And even less of a fan of people who see discussions as pointless, because they genuinely believe that the less "influenced" their opinions are, the more genuine and "true" and unfiltered those opinions will be. That the brain includes all kinds of criteria anyway subconsciously, perhaps. And that without thinking too much, the opinions might actually be more neutral. Perhaps you're only leveraging people's experience on beforehand, and think you're adding valuable informed opinion that way, and simply trust that the opinions must be considered and careful. Since, from experience, you might believe that thinking too much about something doesn't lead to a solution anyway, that it isn't worth it. And that a decision will be made anyway, that typically will be good enough. Perhaps better than a compromise no one is happy with?

 

But what they don't consider is that you're simply favoring quick and easy opinions formed inside an artificial context, towards very set and narrow choices. Do you prefer this brand of coffee or that brand of coffee? Quick taste-testing shows that as long as both brands are pretty tasty, opinions differ, but on average they predictably tend towards fitting with judgements based on any range of criteria experts would assume could be used. It's a feedback loop, but it holds true in practice for long enough. So those opinions are useful when figuring out how to market the winning brand - what type of people tend to like our brand: target them. You could add questions at the end: do you normally drink coffee in the evening by itself, or do you drink it with cookies along with it? You could attempt to add depth to it by asking whether people prefer to normally drink coffee black, or if they have sugar and milk in it. And attempt to differentiate the opinion that way (some people prefer a sharp and strong blend, because they use it for a dessert - others prefer a smoother blend, because they drink more of it and more often).

 

While if you wanted to figure out which coffee actually tastes better, according to different people, without the label or the cream, ice, location, and so on -- or whether to change the blend to get something deeper, or sharper. Perhaps if you wanted to create different new blends, one for after a solid dinner, one for dessert, another for evening comfort, or whatever. Then those immediate opinions really are completely pointless, no matter how "unfiltered" or "objective" they are - because you know on beforehand that the opinions people have, specially the immediate and strong ones, really don't take your criteria into account. 

 

So you've shaped and prepared your focus-group very badly, and ended up with feedback that - even though it's fairly decisive feedback - doesn't actually answer the question you wanted an answer to. Not just did you fail to take into account that people might prefer both smooth and sharp blends, at different times. But you've also committed yourself to selling a very narrow product, while believing it actually has the most appeal to everyone, that the best single brand and blend won in the end, and that it's objectively better than anything else. While in reality you've just haphazardly ended up with picking one blend of somewhat tasty coffee, that you're now going to have to sell with different ice and chocolate topping for customer choices, to a fairly narrow audience who prefers that over the taste of actual coffee. If that was what you wanted, there's no problem. But if it's not, you simply don't have the data you need to decide the appeal of the product, and you decided on narrowing your audience by simply asking the wrong questions, without considering the context.)

[Gfted1]

 

I only care about how I receive a game.

An odd opinion for someone in an internet forum. It would seem your presence here implies some degree of care about what others think.

 

 

About how I play my SP game? I do not. I restspam, savescum, powergame, min/max, and metagame from the strategy guide. I do not RP and usually my sole goal it to produce the most badass toon possible. Then I come here and feed on the tears of strangers that disapprove of my gaming choices.

[nipsen]

Well, the problem turned up when that style of play was enforced for all people who want to play the game. When the availability of actual coffee isn't there any longer. While certain people march around on the tables quaffing frappucino. Else I really couldn't have cared less.

[Gfted1]

Well, the problem turned up when that style of play was enforced for all people who want to play the game.

Ah, you fall into the "cant control self" camp. That makes sense now.

 

When the availability of actual coffee isn't there any longer. While certain people march around on the tables quaffing frappucino. Else I really couldn't have cared less.

What?